Now that you have a new "co-publisher" I was wondering if you were planning on getting your former "National Security" Correnspondent Jack Kelly to issue a correction for some errors in his columns.
For example on June 17, 2006 he wrote:
Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to determine whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had been violated. The answer was no, because the law applies only to those who are working under cover overseas, or who have done so in the five years preceding disclosure, and Ms. Plame had been manning a desk at CIA headquarters for longer than that.
And on July 17, 2005 he wrote:
The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.
Never mind that Fitzgerald's investigation was not limited to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. In a letter to Congressman John Conyers dated January 30, 2004 X wrote:
By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of the DoJ a possibile violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.It's Kelly's description of Valerie Plame's employment, published in your paper, that's at issue here.
It's wrong.
According to this recently released unclassified document, filed in a U.S. District Court:
On 1 January, 2002 Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.So she had traveled overseas and the CIA had considered her covert - and all of this was considered classified by the CIA. The violation of the law was the unauthorized release of classified information. So Mr Kelly mischaracterized both the investigation and the facts pertaining to that investigation.
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When travelling overseas, Ms. Wilson always travelled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
As he was writing as your "National Security Correspondent" at the time, had he not done his homework and checked this out? Or did he at the time have no contacts in the "National Security" community who could have told him what the facts were? Did he know all this to be true but decided to spread misinformation anyway?
And finally,
Can we expect a correction from him anytime soon?
17 comments:
You probably noticed I got bored with Jack Kelly. The way I figure it, it is useful to review what the poopsmiths of the country are producing, and if you're shopping for poop, you may as well shop local.
Besides which, Jack can be a pretty decent writer, especially when he breaks into one of his H.M.S. Pinafore routines.
As to corrections; don't hold your breath. If I were to write an Open Letter to the P-G, I might ask for a National Security columnist from our side of the fence.
Strike that; I'd prefer a columnist that tackles local politics with some degree of piss and vinegar. The Trib's Eric Heyl is probably the boldest soul we have in this town.
There may be a out for Jack Kelly in Libby response
Plame To Sue CIA - The Irony And The (Near) Ectasy
The CIA summary of Ms. Wilson’s employment history claims that she “engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business,” though it does not say whether such travel in fact occurred within the last five years. Further, it is not clear that engaging in temporary duty travel overseas would make a CIA employee who is based in Washington eligible
for protection under the IIPA. In fact, it seems more likely that the CIA employee would have to have been stationed outside the United States to trigger the protection of the statute. To our knowledge, the meaning of the phrase “served outside the United States” in the IIPA has never been litigated. Thus, whether Ms. Wilson was covered by the IIPA remains very much in doubt, especially given the sparse nature of the record.
The important thing to note here is that it's only the president's defenders who raise the issue of IIPA.
To the rest of us in reality, it's the release of classified information (Plame's employment status) that's the sin.
But like a good faithful defender, Herr Throne raises the red-herring of IIPA as if it erases the fact that the CIA considered Plame's employment status classified.
Nice try, though.
To the rest of us in reality, it's the release of classified information (Plame's employment status) that's the sin.
The NSA Warantless wiretaps and the
Swift program were classified information. Why no outrage over those releases?
The NSA Warantless wiretaps and the Swift program were classified information. Why no outrage over those releases?
Oh, I don't know...maybe because those examples weren't THE GOVERNMENT leaking classified information, using its power to ruin the lives of individual citizens? Maybe because those examples were of THE PEOPLE blowing the whistle on government abuse? Maybe that had something to do with it?
Both programs involved government sanction warrantless searches.
I am glad to note, Herr Throne, that you're OK with such warrantless incursions into Americans' privacy just as long as they're "classified."
I am glad to note, Herr Throne, that you're OK with such warrantless incursions into Americans' privacy just as long as they're "classified."
I am OK with intercepting overseas cell phone calls between known Al-Qaeda agents and people in the US.
I see it as the same as WWII radio intercepts. How evil was FDR monitoring communications between the Nazis and agents in the US.
That said if there is a trial, the evidence gathered by the NSA intercepts would not be admissible in court.
Maybe because those examples were of THE PEOPLE blowing the whistle on government abuse?
You mean like a CIA person who lobbied to send her husband on a mission to Niger to produce a bogus report to try to embarrass the current administration? And let that report be released in a editorial in the New York Times written by her husband?
You mean like a CIA person who lobbied to send her husband on a mission to Niger to produce a bogus report to try to embarrass the current administration? And let that report be released in a editorial in the New York Times written by her husband?
OK, boys and girls, how many Wingnuttian distortions and outright lies can you find in this paragraph?
Even the Bushies aren't trying to sell this stale loaf anymore, Mein Heir. Are you hurt that they didn't bother sending you the memo?
Speaking of Wingnuttian distortions and outright lies, which version do you believe?
Here are Plame’s three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:
•She told the CIA’s inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.
•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn’t remember whether she had suggested Wilson.
•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney’s office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, “Well, why don’t we send Joe?” Plame told the committee.
Wow, she's almost as bad as Bertie Gonzales, huh?
Bottom line: The report revealed that the whole Yellow Cake Crisis was a lie ginned up by an Italian spy. This was known well to the CIA, and that knowlege was transmitted to the White House, who decided to use the lie in the State of the Union speech anyhow.
Don't be like the Administration, Mein Heir. When you know the truth, operate on that basis. Don't continue to build your case based on "information" you know to be false. It makes you look like an ass. (Don't take my word for it...just look at Bush. His support is down to his blindest, don't-try-to-confuse-me-with-the-facts-I'll-believe-anything-Dick-Cheney-says hard core.)
The report revealed that the whole Yellow Cake Crisis was a lie ginned up by an Italian spy. This was known well to the CIA, and that knowlege was transmitted to the White House, who decided to use the lie in the State of the Union speech anyhow.
Plame's Lame Game What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal
Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.)
Mein Heir, I don't think you have the knack of this link thing. Usually, your link doesn't support your argument. In this case it does, but here are a few tips for more effective linking:
> When dealing with current events, try to find something less than four years old.
> If you want to be taken seriously, don't link to a neo-con defending bad neo-con decisions.
> British-born, atheist Trotskyites are not always the best sources for conservatives such as yourself.
> You may also want to avoid other "journalists" such as Judy Miller who have discredited themselves by proving to be toadies and figurative/literal bedmates of the most incompetent, corrupt administration at least since Harding, probably in American history.
And once again, when you know something is false, repeating it involves you in a lie. You know you don't want to do that; you think of yourself as an honest person, don't you?
David, do you hold a job? For real? Or do you just sit on your butt all day long at the computer eating bon bons while blogging about things that piss you off?
David, do you hold a job? For real? Or do you just sit on your butt all day long at the computer eating bon bons while blogging about things that piss you off?
Do you have a problem with that, Master Lie?
i have a problem with that you asshole. considering the fact that my paychecks goes into supporting the likes of that lazy, jobless fool.
Does that sum it up for you, dickwad?
i have a problem with that you asshole. considering the fact that my paychecks goes into supporting the likes of that lazy, jobless fool.
Does that sum it up for you, dickwad?
Thanks for clearing that up, Master Lie, and congratulations on getting a job.
a job? i am surprised you even can comprehend the meaning of such a word, being your useless ass sits here with the likes of david all day long.
of course it does not matter to you that the hard earned paychecks are raped by the federal government via taxes does it? not one but, as long is it goes into supporting those david who love to sit on their asses all day long contributing absolutely nothing to society. and why should they contribute anything to society when the government will support them?
Post a Comment