Harriet's Homework Helpers

A postscript on Harriet Miers, buried in a Washington Post story on the burial of her Supreme Court aspirations:

White House aides finished Miers's second response to the Senate questionnaire and delivered it at 11:40 p.m., more than three hours after she decided to abandon her nomination. The 59-page document makes it clear that the struggle to learn about her advice to Bush would have continued had she stayed in the fray. Asked for details about her work, she submitted 135 boilerplate, publicly available fact sheets on White House policies and 67 policy statements the administration has sent Congress on legislation.

Miers wasn't even working on her own questionnaire! I know that Supreme Court justices often lean heavily on their clerks in drafting opinions, but you'd think a person described as "detail-oriented" in four billion media stories might have given her homework a look-see before aides turned it in.

I'm beginning to wonder if she's even a good bowler.

Comments

If only she could say she got a lot of action out of the pen.

She's not a good bowler, but she looks good wearing one.

A Letter to a Friend

Dear [Friend,]

Perhaps it is my experience in military intelligence which provides a perspective that other citizens can't see. In joining the Army Security Agency (ASA,) I was steeped in the rules governing security in documents, operations and in personal security.

From that viewpoint, it is obvious to me that the CIA is complicit in meddling in domestic politics. It is specially true, when you stop and think that Ms. Plame was/is also steeped in the performance of security, and most certainly if she had been, or was a 'covert agent.' Wilson, of course familiar with the importance of personal security and in consideration of the presumed status of her wife, would have consulted with her before going public with the 'information' that he did, in editorial. She, of course, with personal security in mind, and needing to determine exactly what information could be given by Joe, would have cleared it with her superiors; or else she acted independently, and in doing so endangered her own putative 'covert' status.

To me, and because I don't believe that they acted without some CIA 'authorization,' it means that this
whole megillah is part and parcel of some idiot's 'plot;' some very smart idiot, but an idiot nonetheless (and not that any 'idiot' would necessarily be in the singular.)

Indeed, what kind of 'intelligence' is it, and how in depth and vetted, to send a well known ambassador to Niger, and to schmooze the officials? Yet, this is an 'operation' of the CIA and suggested by Ms. Plame? Then, to have some 'authority' given to engage such and 'in-depth' intelligence investigation? Is that the hallmark of a sophisticated and subtle confirmation
process? What level of 'authority' did this 'smooth' operation okayed?

Couple that with the observation that Wilson/Plame would have had to plan and clear information to be provided to the public...or else they are they solely for revealing information about classified CIA operations, and data gained and vetted by having been that very same operation. In that case, the CIA (to whatever level of authority) is *only* complicit in attempting to cover that up...!

Voila! Wilson presents a very, very partisan opinion to the public
of why the Whitehouse 'lied' when they claimed Iraq was seeking to expand its nuclear program, the very same 'information' provided by the CIA, in the first place. Also, it was the CIA which cleared the speech making those claims that president Bush gave to the public...

Where was the cry of 'leaking' classified information gained in a CIA 'operation?'

Where was the outcry that he (Wilson) was endangering his wife's status as a 'covert agent?'

No...no outcry until the Whitehouse tried to show the bias, and hint at nepotism, at the very least, and then the outcry was swift!

Then look! The CIA makes claims to some 'classified status' for Ms. Plame; as if commuting daily to Langley somehow qualifies an employee of being in a 'classified status.' What results? The results are the appointment of an independent 'special counsel.' What happens then, the 'special prosecutor' confirms their claims to the 'classified status' of, for Ms. Plame.

How ridiculous is that? That the 'special' man attempts to convey some 'classified' status for someone who becomes involved in revealing themself, in the first place? Is this the quality of our 'covert agents?'

Now, they can spy on you, [Friend]...I think we need a super special counsel...and quick...

I remain;

[tadowe]

The greatest compliment of them all!

Stony silence from the Left...

If you're looking for vindication in your belief that Plame wasn't a covert operative, you won't find it from me. The indictment makes it clear that she was.

Rogers says, "If you're looking for vindication in your belief that Plame wasn't a covert operative, you won't find it from me. The indictment makes it clear that she was."

I try not to misspeak, or write, but I'm sure that I do, on ocassion. However, in this case I said that I was complimented by the lack of reply, not that I was seeking 'vindication.' I don't know why it seems that there is some imperative to misdirect and raise strawman arguments to discredit what I do say? Because you don't dare to actually address the point?

Anyway, Fitzgerald did NOT say that she was 'covert' in the indictment, and why you attempt to bluff that argument, I can't understand. You think I won't know, or look it up?

No, you and the rest of the public are getting buzzed with terminology. All atwitter with delight in the schadenfreude over apparent problems for our country, in administration, you can't think your way into understanding them.

The term 'covert' has one meaning in the business and 'non-official cover,' has another. When CIA employees are assigned to our various embassies around the world, their 'cover' is 'official.' It isn't classified to reveal that their 'cover,' is as a 'Special Assistant to the Ambassador.'

Then, you and the public are buzzed when some official or 'independent' intelligence specialist says, "Plame was a 'covert agent.' The emphasis, as I indicated, is Was.

The entire 'covert' effort of the CIA was 'outed' in 1994, by Aldrich Ames. This included Brewster-Jennings, and Ms. Plame as a NOC (who was never 'covert,' but merely in a non-official cover.) Those persons, NOC's, are not 'covert,' and which 'clandestine' agents live in the community and have absolutely no relation to workers in a non-official cover and who probably don't know anything about them: Agent handlers under *deep* 'cover.'

However, the NOC's are under the protection of the Identities Protection law. Unfortunately, that protection ends when they are removed from NOC status. I say that, because I had experience with having my name and information made public, and received threats and harassment from anti-war freaks, myself. No person working in intelligence feels comfortable with that reality -- that when they are off their NOC status, they become available to public view.

However, no law has been broken because of revealing her name to the public. She hasn't been a NOC since that operation was retired as 'blown' by Ames' revelations to the Soviets, and *every* operation passed to them through the Cubans (two birds, one stone.)

Besides, and as anyone with any ability in perspective can see, Wilson was the one who initially endangered any 'cover' status she may have still retained from 1994. But, since she wasn't in that status, he didn't break any laws pertaining to that, either.

Really, you have to place your money on "no obstruction of justice" as a guilty verdict for Libby. And, since no law was broken in relation to Plame's status with the CIA, no one in the Whitehouse will be indicted for breaking it...get it?

Add a Comment

These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. A comment may not include more than three links. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).