|white house leak re CIA NOC||MJ|
Oct 22, 2003 5:01 AM
|how much press is this getting in the US? what's the public opinion on this?
The Noc operates under deep cover, as a business executive, tourist, journalist or, in Plame's case, an energy consultant. If the Noc is caught, he or she has no diplomatic protection. "It was the most dangerous assignment you could take. It takes a special sort of person," says Marcinkowski, now a prosecutor in Michigan.
A Noc's identity, in the words of Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA man, is the "holiest of holies". And yet there it was, published in the morning press. Plame's fellow agents and former colleagues were infuriated. It is said that the groundswell of anger was such that the CIA director, George Tenet, had little choice but to take the case to the justice department.
"In this particular case, it was so far over the line, I think myself and a lot of us were truly outraged that the government would do this," says Marcinkowski. "I mean, we kept our mouths closed since 1985, when we joined."
The scandal slowly gathered momentum over the summer, but it was only when official Washington returned from its summer holiday and senior Democrats began to see its potential to damage the administration that the affair began to build up steam. Then, early this month, when news leaked that the CIA had asked for a justice department inquiry, the scandal detonated. It quickly turned out that the senior administration officials Novak had talked to had been busy that week in July, calling up half a dozen Washington journalists to give them the same tip, and potentially committing the same felony six times over.
"My judgment of it when it first happened was that it was clearly designed to intimidate others from coming forward. The word was, if you decide to do what Wilson has done, then we will drag your wife into a public square and administer a beating," says Wilson.
Wilson believes that Karl Rove, the mastermind behind Bush's election strategy since the Texas days, was behind the leaks. A couple of the journalists who were contacted have told him they spoke to Rove directly. One of them reported that Rove had referred to Wilson's wife as "fair game". At one point over the summer, a furious Wilson said he looked forward to the day when Rove would be "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs". He has since withdrawn the comment and toned down his language, leading the White House, which has vehemently defended Rove, to point out the inconsistencies in his version of events.
|As usual the Guardian is sniffing ...||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 5:08 AM
|dried turds again. This is old and tired news that is way overplayed. Hey maybe they'll expose 007 too LOL!!!
You missed the bigest part of the story "The scandal slowly gathered momentum over the summer, but it was only when official Washington returned from its summer holiday and senior Democrats began to see its potential to damage the administration that the affair began to build up steam." As in Live Steam! LOL!!!
|I could imagine what you think but||MJ|
Oct 22, 2003 5:20 AM
|what do people who have more than two brain cells think?
of course the Dems are going to stir over this - it seems a pretty egregious offence from whatever side of the fence you're on
tired and overplayed doesn't sound like the proper description of such a clear breach of national security - particularly since 9/11
honestly - do you not see a problem with the leak? or deny it happened? how does it compare with Clinton's blowjob on the scale of crimes committed in office?
everyone knows that Sean Connery is 007...
|He was the best 007!||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 5:29 AM
|It has yet to be shown that it was a deliberate leak as this story purports it to be. But I guess facts are irrelevant, don't you think?|
Oct 22, 2003 6:01 AM
|deliberate or not it seems a significant breach of trust and national security - perhaps even more so if it was not deliberate
it appears you acknowledge it happened - do you not agree it's a fundamental breach of office whether it's deliberate or not?
he was the best 007 - with the very classy Pierce Brosnan being a close second
|I'd have to go with Moore as my second pick||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 6:22 AM
|Brosnan is OK but he's lacking something.
The idea that her identity somehow endangers others is debatable. Se isn't 007's counterpart you know. It is reported that she is an annalist and not an agent. She is also a Clinton backer as is her husband, so this whole thing really stinks of a setup.
It is also not quite clear who said what and when. Novak said he didn't get any resistance when he intimated he was going to print it. He also said the person he got the info from has no real politico, meaning that the person may have some higher level position, but is not really an insider. The story also says that the person sharing her identity was calling up reporters to give them the info. I haven't read that anywhere and that seems to be a real stretch. I doubt any of these reporters would want to protect that source if it was clear they were being setup. Lastly, Novak wouldn't have printed it if he thought it would out someone that he understood to be at risk. She is not at risk.
|is it really a secret?||mohair_chair|
Oct 22, 2003 6:42 AM
|Everyone seems to know who 007 is. Maybe not the general public, but certainly the underworld. Exposing him will have no effect at all on his effectiveness as a fictional intelligence operative. It's part of his game. I mean, he doesn't show up at the Casino in Monte Carlo and say "I'm Steam, Live Steam." He says his real name!!! He's probably listed in the phone book under "Spies." It probably says 007 on his license plate.
Exposing M or Q is another story. Exposing LMNOP would be disastrous.
|I always wondered about that too||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 6:56 AM
|All the bad guys know "Mr. Bond" or "007". So he really isn't a "secret agent", is he?
I like that - "I'm Steam. Live Steam!" LOL!!!! I'm gonna' use that :O)
|of course ...||sacheson|
Oct 22, 2003 8:32 AM
|... 5 year old Clinton news isn't a dried turd.
Funny how hypocritical you can be.
|Say MJ what's you're opinion on||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 6:29 AM
|Tony Blair? You trash Bush, but don't say much about dear Tony.|
|not a particular fan of Tony||MJ|
Oct 22, 2003 7:16 AM
|but don't hate him either - sort of neutral really
he's from the school of 'left' politicians who, like Clinton, effectively occupied the middle ground of debate and he now holds office on that basis
Blair is the US's best and most skilled diplomat and apologist - you've got to agree it sometimes takes a Euro to get through to some of those continental types - the UK has always been a natural bridge between Europe and the US
is he a good leader? I think he is an effective leader - he does what's necessary to stay in power and does what he thinks is right despite public opinion - while that's personally an admirable trait it may not be the best trait for the leader of a parliamentary democracy
I don't whince when he speaks in public or is quoted in the press (like most people do with W) - though I do often disagree with him (like most people do with W) - he does seem genuinely able and intelligent - Bush and most American politicians would die a quick, painful and public death if he had to endure a day of questions and open debate in the British Parliament like Tony does on a regular basis - make no mistake he can handle himself in verbal sparring
when compared to IDS of the Tories, Blair's my preferred choice - but it may be interesting to see what Charles Kennedy and the Lib Dems can bring to the next general election - it would seem they could capitalise on alot of issues that Blair is perceived to have let the British public down on - they do have a lack of cohesion which is a double edged sword
for the record I voted Labour in the last general election in the UK (and for Gore in the US!) because the Tories were mean spirited 'little Englanders' who just don't understand what the public want and were out of touch - when Labour came to power in 1997 I was a social worker in London and there were great celebrations marking the end of 20 plus years of Conservative control
however, as there's no legitmate (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) opposition to Blair or even contenders in his own party we're likely to hang on to him for a while longer yet - assuming he doesn't stroke out or have a heart attack like he did last Sunday...
what's your take on him?
|I guess you don't get much on||MJ|
Oct 22, 2003 8:55 AM
|international politics from Fox or the Post - both well known and well respected media organisations...|
|I guess you don't get much on||Live Steam|
Oct 22, 2003 9:03 AM
|I don't pay much mind to internal British policy, so I don't know much about Blair other than his stance on international issues. I, unlike yourself, don't have dual citizenship in the US and GB.
My impression of him is that he does what he believes is best and not what is popular. Very much like GWB. He is very good at cozying up to whom ever is President here, that is for sure. Nothing wrong with that. I don't believe that he would have engaged GB in Iraq if he didn't see the same threats that GWB did. Why is it that you lambaste Bush for the war, but never mention Blair?
|Bush haters are simply that, Bush haters...||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 9:23 AM
|Insignificant and nonsensical. The hatred of our President and the desire to deride everything about him blurs their judgement and impairs their ability to think logically and make intelligent decisions. :)|
|Turn on your brain...||Tri_Rich|
Oct 22, 2003 10:38 AM
|Not all criticism of the prez is valid but neither is it all invalid.
Trusting everything he says is as ignorant as opposing it.
|I absolutely agree. nm||No_sprint|
Oct 22, 2003 10:57 AM
|Bush haters are simply that, Bush haters...||MJ|
Oct 23, 2003 12:19 AM
|the original post is a query - asking questions is good - it's the cornerstone of effective democracy - the question re CIA leaks should be crucial to both sides of the aisle - do you not agree?|
|because I (correctly) assumed||MJ|
Oct 23, 2003 12:17 AM
|that you didn't have a clue about anything to do with British politics or have anything approaching an objective international perspective - ignorance or citizenship is really no excuse for jutifying your poorly held or thought out opinions - we could also talk about the internal politics in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America - I'm not a citizen of any of the countries on those continents but am capable of reading (you should try it!) - but then it's clear from your posts that you find it difficult to understand what's happening in the US much less elsewhere - and as you've handicapped yourself with Fox and the Post you're unlikely to improve your comprehension anytime soon
if you want to hear the criticisms we can do that although I suspect you'll find most of them meaningless due to your ignorance - if you are aware of Blair's international stance I'll assume you mean either his rah rah cheerleading for the war which is well reported by dubious "media sources" like Fox and the Post and not anything of substance/depth or "international" as far as issues apply to the US
if you are actually current on Blair's stance on international issues (or even on Iraq) then I find it difficult to believe that you haven't heard about the MI6 weapons expert's suicide in July following his outing as a BBC source re (the lack of)WMD's - FWIW all my criticism of Bush re the adventure in Iraq can be equally applied to Blair
it's now very clear that there weren't any threats from Iraq - we're still waiting on Blair explaining that one - especially as Bush seems not to be interested or held accountable in the US for baseless assertions and lies that were used to jutify a war which appears to have no end in sight and a mounting US body count (the UK body count is a concern - but it's understood that British soldiers are generally better trained and certainly better understand effective peacekeeping obligations mostly owing to Northern Ireland) - it's likely that with a serious alternative candidate Blair will be in real trouble at the next election - but the nature of Parliamentary democracy is a bit different than the US model
the general opinion here on Blair re going along with the US re Iraq is that he is a grateful lapdog eagerly fulfilling the directions and bidding of his master - people are generally very unhappy that he's happy to serve the current master in particular who is widely seen as dangerous and ignorant rather than folksy and effective
that you find me to be a "liberal" denotes your total lack of an international perspective - I am very middle of the road in the UK - my cocktail party criticisms of Blair are rather mild - but the left in the UK have absolutely lost confidence in Blair and he is villified as a leader