Wilson's covert status

[anatta]

Some of the far right posters here have stated that Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent. I am wondering whether they still hold this view and why in light of the fact that:

1. Valerie Wilson, hottie, testified under oath she was covert.

2. General Michael Hayden, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency -- appointed twice to top positions by President George W. Bush -- stated for today's record that Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a CIA employee was "under cover" and that her employment was "classified information "

3. The Special Prosecutor says so.

[almostbusto]

I am wondering why you care? (just so you know, what I am suppressing in my post is 'why are you suppressing your argument in your post?')

[anatta]

I made statements in prior posts that were rebutted by assertions that Wilson was not covert. I don't think any rationale was given then, so I am wondering whether those ideas are still held and if so, why.

See, I like wingnut logic, it amuses me to read about how the poster knows more about a CIA agent's status than the agent or the Director. Sort of similar to global warming..."Those scientists are idiots...lemme tell ya..."

[iron81]

It just so happened that Valerie Plame testified before a Congressional committee today. Here's some highlights:

- She was in fact covert
- Her outing ""has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents."
- Said her work involved gatering intel on WMD
- Her husbands assignment to uncover the bogus claim of the Niger yellowcake wasn't her idea and wasn't an example of nepotism.

CNN

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
It just so happened that Valerie Plame testified before a Congressional committee today. Here's some highlights:

- She was in fact covert
- Her outing ""has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents."
- Said her work involved gatering intel on WMD
- Her husbands assignment to uncover the bogus claim of the Niger yellowcake wasn't her idea and wasn't an example of nepotism.

CNN

[/ QUOTE ]

What a contrast in style for Ms. Wilson and that lawyer, Toensing. Joe Wilson is a lucky man. As for Toensing, I thought she did a good job in reciting the talking points. What does it matter that Wilson gave money to Gore? She used her cover. How is that relevant?
The crux of her agrument, that Wilson is not covert because she did not reside outside the US is debunked here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/16/151133/397

[PLOlover]

The whole thing is so like the dumb let's get nixon for some maybe accomplice after the fact almost midemeanor burglary and let's just forget about the fact that he's responsible for maybe millions of deaths.

I think the thing is all these powerful people are so compromised by their evil acts that that they can't infight on the real issues because that would consume them as well, so they pick a trivial side issue that can be totally compartmentalized and restrict all their infighting and power jockeying to that little sandbox.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
See, I like wingnut logic, it amuses me to read about how the poster knows more about a CIA agent's status than the agent or the Director. Sort of similar to global warming..."Those scientists are idiots...lemme tell ya..."



[/ QUOTE ]

What about the scientists who are global warming doubters? Since they are scientists and you are not (correct me if I am wrong), then under your logic, you cannot criticize them.

[anatta]

Its a complicated issue, I don't know everything about it. My dad and mom are scientist, but I just gamble. lol. You're right though, I cannot speak definitively on the subject, which I admit I might do at times. I still enjoy it when "random internet dude with funny name" tells me global warming is a hoax for sure.

Anyways, I saw on the CNN ticker that this winter was the hottest on record. I don't think anyone denies that its getting hotter. I think most scientist think its CO2 from fossil fuels causing it, but I guess some, not many, disagree. I hope the consequences aren't too bad.

[zyqwert]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right though, I cannot speak definitively on the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a tough one for a layperson. On the one hand big claims require big proof. On the other hand, they've been making these claims for a while and the case seems to be getting stronger. But then, I read about death threats to scientists on the 'no' side, and I wonder if it's all a religon in disguise. The usual rules of thumb for evaluating scientific evidence as a layperson don't apply here because of the politics involved.

However, I recall from geology class a non-controversial case in the past where lowly life forms completely changed our planet:

[ QUOTE ]
So life began about 3.5 billion years ago. Eventually more sophisticated organisms developed in an Earth without oxygen in its atmosphere, an atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide and unbreathable, indeed poisonous, to humans. The oxygen in the atmosphere has been mostly biologically generated: For example, countless cyanobacteria breathed in CO2 and exhaled O2 for hundreds of millions of years. Plants, when they settled on the continents, did the same. As a result, the CO2 in the atmosphere has decreased while the O2 has steadily gone up.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole thing is so like the dumb let's get Nixon for some maybe accomplice after the fact almost misdemeanor burglary and let's just forget about the fact that he's responsible for maybe millions of deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]You get 'em best way you can. Al Capone was got for tax evasion. Nixon for Watergate.

Both denied they were crooks.