I really don't know what to say...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6935.html

How about, "Damned Americans will buy anything."

Jerry Zucker? The man's a whore (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099653/). He did good work with Jim and David (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286/), but anyone with Ghost and First Knight on his resume ought to be recognized for what he is.

Cool, it's about time the public learned about how the Bush administration has undermined the real war on terror.

Speaking of whores, I saw the Couric interview with Plame and it sort of sullied me on her. This woman used to work for the CIA? Oh, boy...

Beyond the fact that she looks and comes across as a cheerleader all grown up, she's a media whore — plain and simple. I don't want to get into the specifics of her case, but the woman's response to her "cover" being blown is to do a photo shoot in Vanity Fair and show up on red carpets in formal gowns? Please, someone hand me a trashcan so I can retch...

Cool, it's about time the public learned about how the Bush administration has undermined the real war on terror.

i second that

Yeah, well guess what guys? The audience for this film will be about the size as the one for Redacted or Lions for Lambs.

A Beautiful Mind wasn't bad, who would have thought people would want to see a movie about math?

It was also totally inaccurate.

Speaking of whores, I saw the Couric interview with Plame and it sort of sullied me on her. This woman used to work for the CIA? Oh, boy...

Beyond the fact that she looks and comes across as a cheerleader all grown up, she's a media whore — plain and simple. I don't want to get into the specifics of her case, but the woman's response to her "cover" being blown is to do a photo shoot in Vanity Fair and show up on red carpets in formal gowns? Please, someone hand me a trashcan so I can retch...

yeah trying to bring it to the attention of the american people that the bush adminastratiion outed here for political reasons and in turn made the country less safe yeah i can see how that could be viewed as disgusting:rolleyes:

Beyond the fact that she looks and comes across as a cheerleader all grown up, she's a media whore — plain and simple

At least we know what this is about, then.

Look, I find the notion disturbing, too. It's disturbing that she's going to push the fight this far. It's disturbing that someone (e.g. Zucker) thinks it's worth pursuing. But what unsettles me most is the idea that yeah, this move will sell.

They need Val Kilmer as Joseph Wilson, and Beyonce Knowles as Valerie Plame. Fred Thompson should be available to play President Bush, and Edie McClurg would make a great Karl Rove.

What? It's not like this movie will be anything more than fantasy fiction, anyway. Let's get some star power.

She lost her job, and agents may have lost their lives. Why shouldn't she take this story to the public?

It's been taken to the public. It was taken to the public more than a year ago. What else do you we need to know about it?

Do you really think, at this point, that this isn't about the limelight and the profit that comes with the limelight? In a warped fashion, Plame ought to be grateful she was "outed." Nobody would know who the heck she was if she wasn't.

At least we know what this is about, then.

I admit I have something of a revulsion toward her. But it has nothing to with my politics and everything to do with the way she behaves. I have family who served in the agency, I know that outing NOCS isn't good, no matter what the circumstances. But this woman? I don't know. She just irritates me, and she's acted pretty foolishly, in my opinion.

But this woman? I don't know. She just irritates me, and she's acted pretty foolishly, in my opinion.

I think, if we were able to see that far into the CIA, we'd find her irritating, snitty bitchiness isn't all that uncommon. At some point, these folks live in a world entirely their own. Just like politicians, lawyers, and Fortune 500 executives ... actors ... and, as some would have it ... journalists.

Ahem. Er ... uh ... really, that one's not aimed at you. I promise. I mean, I'm aware of the irony, but that really isn't my point.

Since the full effects of this case are classified, only a dramatization can really depict what could have been the repercussions of her outing.

I would readily agree the majority of the Media live in a bubble of their own making, with the requisite rules and behavior. They are also experts at practicing groupthink, just as most of the other denizens in the professions you mentioned are.

The CIA? Most of the people I know who have worked there are very serious and very boring folks. Magazine spreads don't interest them.

I would readily agree the majority of the Media live in a bubble of their own making, with the requisite rules and behavior. They are also experts at practicing groupthink, just as most of the other denizens in the professions you mentioned are.

The CIA? Most of the people I know who have worked there are very serious and very boring folks. Magazine spreads don't interest them.

if you really know people in the cia don't you have better and more imporant things to be doing than posting here. not trying to be a dick just wondering

...

The CIA? Most of the people I know who have worked there are very serious and very boring folks. Magazine spreads don't interest them.

That's just what they want you to think...

That's just what they want you to think...

Well, I base that on personal knowledge and an academic knowledge (based on reading and studying) of the type of person who is a case officer, living under non-official cover. I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that most of the people who lived their life undercover don't run out and become media whores the minute that cover is unnecessary. They're used to secrecy and dealing with very important business. Fame and fortune just aren't on the agenda.

if you really know people in the cia don't you have better and more imporant things to be doing than posting here. not trying to be a dick just wondering

Um, the majority of the people who work for the CIA don't have to hide the fact that they work there, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Well, I guess her spook career is over, what else is she supposed to do?

Conservatives are loyal only to the Republican party not America. Even if one of their own commits an act of treason, they'll exonerate him to protect the image of the GOP. They don't hold their own accountable for anything. Atleast the Dems sideded with the Republicans on the General Patraues ad. However, when Rush Limbaugh commited the same act the GOP sided with the party over their Country. That's one of numerous examples. Larry Craig learned the hard way when he chose the Country over his party. By being one of the 4 Republicans who voted against renewing the Patriot Act. And soon after, he was exposed, even though these allegations about him have been circulating for years. What a covenience for them! The man they absolutely detested for underminding the Ceaser Bush had his career ruined.

Well, I guess her spook career is over, what else is she supposed to do?

I don't know, nor do I care. Lots of people have things happen to them that are grossly unjust. Most don't get to pen books about their sorry tangle with fate, hobnob with the elite and land movie deals as a direct result of the injustice they suffered. The Plames do.

And you realize her husband has written a book (that nobody read), too? So we have two books, largely about the same thing floating around out what will probably be a forgotten footnote in history 30 years from now. In other words, I think this is self-enrichment and narcissism at its finest. Now I have no problem with the former, so long as it isn't done in an illegal or tacky way (and the Plames are pretty damn tacky), but am irked by the later. Taken together, the tackiness and the narcissism, it's all just a little much to handle. I suspect the reason you're able to overcome such reasonable sentiments is that your hatred of Bush overpowers any revulsion to the pair.

I don't know, nor do I care. Lots of people have things happen to them that are grossly unjust. Most don't get to pen books about their sorry tangle with fate, hobnob with the elite and land movie deals as a direct result of the injustice they suffered. The Plames do.

And you realize her husband has written a book (that nobody read), too? So we have two books, largely about the same thing floating around out what will probably be a forgotten footnote in history 30 years from now. In other words, I think this is self-enrichment and narcissism at its finest. Now I have no problem with the former, so long as it isn't done in an illegal or tacky way (and the Plames are pretty damn tacky), but am irked by the later. Taken together, the tackiness and the narcissism, it's all just a little much to handle. I suspect the reason you're able to overcome such reasonable sentiments is that your hatred of Bush overpowers any revulsion to the pair.

one of the top covert agents in the area of nuclear intelligence is outed for political reasons and you see no reason why she and her family should try and get that out into the public view as much as possible to me that is unamerican

Well, I base that on personal knowledge and an academic knowledge (based on reading and studying) of the type of person who is a case officer, living under non-official cover. I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that most of the people who lived their life undercover don't run out and become media whores the minute that cover is unnecessary. They're used to secrecy and dealing with very important business. Fame and fortune just aren't on the agenda.



Um, the majority of the people who work for the CIA don't have to hide the fact that they work there, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...

people who know people in the company tend to be rather important

one of the top covert agents in the area of nuclear intelligence is outed for political reasons and you see no reason why she and her family should try and get that out into the public view as much as possible to me that is unamerican

Again, it's out. There was a Op-Ed in the NYT written by her husband, there was an investigation into the leak and a trial (covered by the Media) and there was a book written by her husband. There were numerous articles, like the infamous one in Vanity Fair, in which the Plames dished out the incident and posed in classy outfits. Now she's written a book and maybe has a movie in the works. Can we really claim, at this point, that it's about informing the American people? I think the American people who care about this or want to know about it already know.

people who know people in the company tend to be rather important

The majority of the company are analysts that anyone can run into at a bar in Georgetown, translators and ex-Military personnel. This isn't the movies.

Again, it's out. There was a Op-Ed in the NYT written by her husband, there was an investigation into the leak and a trial (covered by the Media) and there was a book written by her husband. There were numerous articles, like the infamous one in Vanity Fair, in which the Plames dished out the incident and posed in classy outfits. Now she's written a book and maybe has a movie in the works. Can we really claim, at this point, that it's about informing the American people? I think the American people who care about this or want to know about it already know.

she was outed yes for a while but the public has never been told the implications of it and how that her outing has hurt the governments ability to protect us has not been fully discussed in a public manner

Whatever. I think anyone who reads the Times and knows anything about the covert world understands exactly what it means. That the "public" does not says more about the public than it does about Plame.

Whatever. I think anyone who reads the Times and knows anything about the covert world understands exactly what it means. That the "public" does not says more about the public than it does about Plame.

i think it says more about the media as a whole than the public

Whatever. It was the lede story in the Times and on all the major broadcasts for months, but apparently that doesn't quench your zeal for going after W...

Whatever. It was the lede story in the Times and on all the major broadcasts for months, but apparently that doesn't quench your zeal for going after W...

most of them never talked about just how bad outing a covert agent is. you don't get it. it is not zeal that makes me speak against bush. it is fear of what we don't know what has been done under his adminasration considering the severity of the things that got out, i tremble at the thought of what hasn't

Again, whatever. I don't want to talk about Bush in this thread. If you want to talk about him, fine. But I'm talking about her and how she's acting. Period.

Again, whatever. I don't want to talk about Bush in this thread. If you want to talk about him, fine. But I'm talking about her and how she's acting. Period.

your the one who brought him up not me

I really don't know what to say...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6935.html

go for it Hollywood! another flop in the making to bankrupt these BDS-suffering retards.

one way or another they will learn to stop making these anti US movies

But then what would PJ got to see at the movies?

But then what would PJ got to see at the movies?

um is it not a little crass to judge me on something you know jack shit about( my movie choices) and i have had family that worked as covert agents that is why i feel the plame outing is so important

um is it not a little crass to judge me on something you know jack shit about( my movie choices) and i have had family that worked as covert agents that is why i feel the plame outing is so important

why is it important?

why is it important?

because it shows a government more concerned with politics than governing

because it shows a government more concerned with politics than governing

the CIA has always been polarized... some are serving the President, and some are "serving" the nation (by making their own decisions about what's good for the country).

look, if you think your ideas are better, then run for Office, and get a mandate from the American electorate to do whatever you want to do.
but as a CIA agent, a government employee, you're there to execute government policy, which is set by the President.

and for the most sensitive operations, the President has a clear sight of them, bypassing many levels of reporting.

it may shock you, but some say that Plame has betrayed the President.

the CIA has always been polarized... some are serving the President, and some are "serving" the nation (by making their own decisions about what's good for the country).

look, if you think your ideas are better, then run for Office, and get a mandate from the American electorate to do whatever you want to do.
but as a CIA agent, a government employee, you're there to execute government policy, which is set by the President.

and for the most sensitive operations, the President has a clear sight of them, bypassing many levels of reporting.

it may shock you, but some say that Plame has betrayed the President.

i'm not yet old enough to run for national office

i guess i should have been specific: "you" = any CIA agent.

i guess i should have been specific: "you" = any CIA agent.

thats the fun part of the word you.

it may shock you, but some say that Plame has betrayed the President. And the ones who outed her betrayed the country.

So I guess a lot of "conservatives" are facing a conundrum: which is worse, betraying the President or betraying the Country ?

I suppose the question of which takes the most courage is answered.

It's a good thing the Wilsons are such objectionable people, with their narcissism and their airs - otherwise the matter of treason would have to be dealt with seriously on some level, even by the punditocracy.

And the ones who outed her betrayed the country.

So I guess a lot of "conservatives" are facing a conundrum: which is worse, betraying the President or betraying the Country ?

I suppose the question of which takes the most courage is answered.

It's a good thing the Wilsons are such objectionable people, with their narcissism and their airs - otherwise the matter of treason would have to be dealt with seriously on some level, even by the punditocracy.

So what are we to make of Novak, then? Should he be prosecuted? And if so, what about the reporters who outed other CIA operations? You know, the ones you don't like, the rendition and wiretapping, etc.?

So what are we to make of Novak, then? Should he be prosecuted? And if so, what about the reporters who outed other CIA operations? You know, the ones you don't like, the rendition and wiretapping, etc.?

what you said didn't make much sense. outing a covert agent is not the same as outing brutal and ineffective practices and you seem to be equating the two as one and the same.

what you said didn't make much sense. outing a covert agent is not the same as outing brutal and ineffective practices and you seem to be equating the two as one and the same.

outing secret government programs is illegal.

btw, i don't see any Democrats introducing resolutions to ban these "brutal and ineffective" practices, or to have a judge scrutinize them.

WHAT? MORE POSTURING FROM THE DEMOCRATS? :rolleyes:

outing secret government programs is illegal.

btw, i don't see any Democrats introducing resolutions to ban these "brutal and ineffective" practices, or to have a judge scrutinize them.

WHAT? MORE POSTURING FROM THE DEMOCRATS? :rolleyes:

most of them are set up so that they cannot be brought up in court and second i believe the dems tried to ban some of these things and the republicans stonewalled them like wiretapping

what you said didn't make much sense. outing a covert agent is not the same as outing brutal and ineffective practices and you seem to be equating the two as one and the same.

I admit there is a difference in outing and officer and outing a program, but I ask the question (and I think it's relevant), because ultimately both compromise national security.

most of them are set up so that they cannot be brought up in court and second i believe the dems tried to ban some of these things and the republicans stonewalled them like wiretapping

where there's a will, there's a way.
the reality is that Democrats support these programs.

their hypocrisy is in that they claim that they don't since the buck does not stop with them. they can talk all the shit they want now, gathering the support of anti-"torture" clowns (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/18/video-morons-in-clown-make-up-show-the-cia-a-thing-or-two/)

So what are we to make of Novak, then? Should he be prosecuted? And if so, what about the reporters who outed other CIA operations? You know, the ones you don't like, the rendition and wiretapping, etc.? Reporters cannot "out" CIA operations - if a reporter knows about it, it's already outed.

That said, any reporting of CIA operations would indicate possble betrayal of country, yes, and the authorities would be remiss in not thoroughly investigating it.

In the case of the renditions and wiretapping, of course, the betrayal was the other way around - the reporters exposed a betrayal, rather than committing one. But the question is one of fact.

Reporters cannot "out" CIA operations - if a reporter knows about it, it's already outed.

That said, any reporting of CIA operations would indicate possble betrayal of country, yes, and the authorities would be remiss in not thoroughly investigating it.

In the case of the renditions and wiretapping, of course, the betrayal was the other way around - the reporters exposed a betrayal, rather than committing one. But the question is one of fact.

you sounded sane up to the 3rd paragraph.
if those programs are illegal, and Bush is treasonous, then strike the programs down, and indict Bush.

what? no one is doing that?
what a crazy world!

if those programs are illegal, and Bush is treasonous, then strike the programs down, and indict Bush.

what? no one is doing that?
what a crazy world! "Crazy" is not the only - or most likely - explanation for the current state of affairs in the upper levels of US national administration.

"Crazy" is not the only - or most likely - explanation for the current state of affairs in the upper levels of US national administration.

would you care to explain why what you said is not irresponsible, unserious hyperbole?

Yeah, well guess what guys? The audience for this film will be about the size as the one for Redacted or Lions for Lambs.

Or "The Deer Hunter"?

would you care to explain why what you said is not irresponsible, unserious hyperbole? Hmmm. I said, and you quote, that there are better and more likely explanations for our current situation in Washington than "crazy".

Is that what you find irresponsible and unserious ?

Lessee, movies: we've got Catch 22, Apocalypse Now, Flags Of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima,

(Clint Eastwood has acted in, produced, or directed a fair half dozen successful anti-war movies - including the unique Letters From Iwo Jima, which may be the first major US made war movie ever set up on the enemy's point of view, however limited the context).

(So not counting Red Dawn, which was kind of stealth, we'll get one from Vietnam in, say, twenty years or so. If there's somebody around like Eastwood, then)

Hmmm. I said, and you quote, that there are better and more likely explanations for our current situation in Washington than "crazy".

Is that what you find irresponsible and unserious ?

Lessee, movies: we've got Catch 22, Apocalypse Now, Flags Of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima,

(Clint Eastwood has acted in, produced, or directed a fair half dozen successful anti-war movies - including the unique Letters From Iwo Jima, which may be the first major US made war movie ever set up on the enemy's point of view, however limited the context).

(So not counting Red Dawn, which was kind of stealth, we'll get one from Vietnam in, say, twenty years or so. If there's somebody around like Eastwood, then)

Clint's Iwo Jima movie was very made very responsibly.

my "irresponsible hyperbole" comment was about referring to Bush's programs as treasonous

my "irresponsible hyperbole" comment was about referring to Bush's programs as treasonous I didn't. I referred to them - and indirectly, without invoking his name - as betrayals of the country: not quite the same thing.

The outing of Plame was treasonous, of course - not just betrayal, but betrayal to an enemy.

you sounded sane up to the 3rd paragraph.
if those programs are illegal, and Bush is treasonous, then strike the programs down, and indict Bush.

what? no one is doing that?
what a crazy world!

too many people blindly follow Bush to make it possible to hold him accountable for the transgretions he and others in his administration have committed.

Clint's Iwo Jima movie was very made very responsibly.

my "irresponsible hyperbole" comment was about referring to Bush's programs as treasonous

creating fear in the u.s.a. is aiding the enemy which is treason.

Reporters cannot "out" CIA operations - if a reporter knows about it, it's already outed.

You know very little of CIA history then. There have been plenty of occasions when reporters stumbled onto things or attempted to write pieces only to have them quashed by the powers that be at the agency. One notable example would be when DCI Allen Dulles leaned on Arthur Sulzberger at the NYT and had the Times pull its reporter from Guatemala shortly before the coup, because that reporter was exposing a CIA disinformation campaign. In other words, journalists stumble on things all the time that nobody knows about and they can and have "broken" those things and outed operations. A more recent example would be the wiretapping issue, which I asked you about.

That said, any reporting of CIA operations would indicate possble betrayal of country, yes, and the authorities would be remiss in not thoroughly investigating it.

So who is to decide this? You seem skeptical of the CIA and other intelligence organizations, yet you speak of investigating betrayals or outings. Presumably, the only people who really know the actual danger of the outings are the very people who would complain to the authorities. How that would square with your politics, I can't imagine...

In the case of the renditions and wiretapping, of course, the betrayal was the other way around - the reporters exposed a betrayal, rather than committing one. But the question is one of fact.

And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You don't like these programs and you have decided (on your own), with no operational knowledge of these programs or the intelligence they provide, that they are "bad" and should have be outed. You've decided no crime was committed there, but say a crime was committed with Plame. All leaks aren't the same, of course, but I wonder if you wouldn't mind explaining your rationale for what should and should not be reported on, so far as the secrecy and security of the US is concerned...

An interesting story about the Times sitting on something that has to do with national security...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6989.html

I came across this quote and thought it was relevant (and interesting):

"Winston Churchill was once asked ... to differentiate between revelation of a vital state secret and a politically awkward affair. The first, he replied, was a danger to the country, the second a nuisance to the government. His retort begged the question. Who is to decide where nuisance ends and danger begins?

In a democracy, the government should not have the unchallenged responsibility for that decision. I am equally reluctant, however, to see that function given exclusively to the American press. ... I am left with the nagging concern that instantaneous popular uproar over the disclosure of classified material is not the proper atmostphere in which to forge public policy."

From R. Harris Smith's OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency.

Was the Plame affair a danger or a nuisance? And should it have been adjudicated in the public arena? I think these are all interesting questions. I'm not sure I know the answer to them or that one can know the answer to them, either. Most of the data we have to base our answers from are the product of the involved parties, all of which have a vested interest.

Reporters cannot "out" CIA operations - if a reporter knows about it, it's already outed. ”

You know very little of CIA history then. There have been plenty of occasions when reporters stumbled onto things or attempted to write pieces only to have them quashed by the powers that be at the agency. So? If a reporter "stumbles" unto something, it's outed as of that moment - the reporter is a civilian, like you and me. The CIA may of course make mistakes, and blow operations to the public - and a reporter may choose, at the reporter's discretion, to cooperate in concealing CIA operations. The CIA is of course adept at pressuring that decision, and influencing that discretion.

Was the Plame affair a danger or a nuisance? And should it have been adjudicated in the public arena? I think these are all interesting questions. I'm not sure I know the answer to them or that one can know the answer to them, either. One can convene a formal investigation with an independent prosecutor, and compel testimony under oath from all parties involved, and give the info to a grand jury for possible indictment.

The presumption is that an official's handing the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press is a serious matter, and needs to be accounted for explicitly and in detail and under oath. Such a deed is hardly dismissable as a "nuisance", regardless of its actual effects on operations. Do you disagree?

And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You don't like these programs and you have decided (on your own), with no operational knowledge of these programs or the intelligence they provide, that they are "bad" and should have be outed. You've decided no crime was committed there, but say a crime was committed with Plame. My recommendations are identical so far as the two situations are identical: the government officials involved in apparent oathbreaking and betrayal of office as well as the country's interests should be investigated. The reporters involved should be treated as reporters, and the government officials as government officials.

So? If a reporter "stumbles" unto something, it's outed as of that moment - the reporter is a civilian, like you and me. The CIA may of course make mistakes, and blow operations to the public - and a reporter may choose, at the reporter's discretion, to cooperate in concealing CIA operations. The CIA is of course adept at pressuring that decision, and influencing that discretion.

I think your playing games with language here. One reporter learning something about an OP may technically "out" it, in that the OP is no longer known about by just the people on the bigot list, but it's still fairly secure. In other words, there's a difference in a reporter knowing about something and doing nothing with it and "outing" the entire shebang with the sort of coverage the Plame affair or the wiretapping disclosure received.

One can convene a formal investigation with an independent prosecutor, and compel testimony under oath from all parties involved, and give the info to a grand jury for possible indictment.

Perhaps. But I would feel more comfortable if this was carried out in private. Public adjudication poses obvious problems.

The presumption is that an official's handing the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press is a serious matter, and needs to be accounted for explicitly and in detail and under oath. Such a deed is hardly dismissable as a "nuisance", regardless of its actual effects on operations. Do you disagree?

No, but I have always questioned whether Plame was still operating under cover. Regardless of her actual status, I also think one needs to question whether her outing was harmful or a nuisance. By that I mean, if she really wasn't undercover and her exposure made little or no impact on intelligence and operations, then I tend to view the matter as a flap, nothing more. Plame herself has said her exposure has jeopardized assets and operations abroad, and I suppose we have to take her at face value, but as I said earlier, it's difficult to assess the actual damage when the only person commenting on it has the most to gain from stretching the truth and self-aggrandizement.

My recommendations are identical so far as the two situations are identical: the government officials involved in apparent oathbreaking and betrayal of office as well as the country's interests should be investigated. The reporters involved should be treated as reporters, and the government officials as government officials.

Well, you have to prove "oathbreaking." I also think you're being a bit to broad with your stance on the reporters. Should they be able to disclose whatever they stumble across? This seems dubious. In many cases, a reporter could find something and think it's illegal, when in fact, the agency has a presidential finding and is acting perfectly legally. In other cases, I simply don't trust most of the press. They love stories, and in their zeal to get a scoop, I have no doubt they would run material that may harm the US. In fact, a former Counter terrorism CIA officer has made just that claim about Bob Woodward's Bush at War. Or consider someone like Philip Agee, who said his morals compelled him to write a book identifying hundreds of covert agents and secrets. Is that OK? I don't think so...

Plame says it's not been all that bad since she was "exposed." Well, duh...

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2007/12/7/No-Playboy-for-Plame