Thursday, March 22, 2007

Oh, the things you find by clicking the linkys!!!

Far be it for me to actually call someone a liar,
but in this case I will.


As House Intelligence Committee chairman when Republicans still controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley.
Waxman, the 67-year-old, 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden (quote is factually incorrect).
But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra Wednesday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Anyone who wasn't drunk or counting the hours until sundown during the hearings is well aware of what Rep Waxman said NUMEROUS times, i.e.-

Washington Post

Plame's testimony on the covert nature of her job was buttressed by a statement that Waxman read at the hearing's opening which, he said, was approved by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA's director. The statement said that Plame worked in a covert capacity at the time of Novak's column and that her employment status was classified under an executive order.

Anyone see the difference here? I knew you would,
we got people who read this blog with IQ's over 45. The CIA has rules they run by, and one of them probably has to due with protocol about these types of situations.

The rest of Novakulas op-ed ist just as stupid, but as staying for any period of time reading "Townhall" kills brain cells, I'll save it for another day.


At 2:13 PM, Blogger Paddy said...

Bob Novak is a big fat liar.

At 2:19 PM, Blogger Bill said...

Cliff, this is OT but when you get on TV again and are talking about the USA firings would you please ask this question...

What I want to know ....Why does the President need to invoke executive privilege if there were no conversations with the President?

At 2:20 PM, Blogger Bill said...

thank you Cliff.

At 10:19 PM, Blogger The MinuteMan said...

FWIW, here is an excerpt from Waxman's opening statement:

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Since readers here have an IQ over 45, maybe someone can help - where does Hayden (or Waxman) address the question of whether Ms. Plame was covert *under the IIPA*?

Telling us that her status with the CIA was covert is interesting, but not precisely on point, since there are reasons to believe the CIA applies a different standard.

Put another way - why didn't Waxman read a statement specifically addressing the IIPA question?

Why didn't he say, "CIA Counsel has reviewed Ms. Plame's classifeid file as well as the relevant statute and has concluded that she qualifies as "covert" under the IIPA"?

The CIA has rules they run by, and one of them probably has to due with protocol about these types of situations.

Probably? Glad we cleared that up.

Personally, I can't think of any good reason for Waxman not to have offered the opinion of CIA Counsel.

Oh, I lied, I have no trouble thinking of one reason - he didn't like their answer.

Tom Maguire


Post a Comment

<< Home