Evidence PROVES Plame's Identity Wasn't Secret
Justin Higgins — Thu, 2006-04-20 00:01
**Update: DECL marks the declassification instructions, which were when and how to reveal this information. All info appears to confirm that her identity wasn't covert, or those declassification requirements wouldn't have been in place. Also, Plame's name would have been blanked out during any sort of declassification if she was covert, which she wasn't. Full convo on this, including insight from military intel analysts, HERE**
A critic of mine tried to say that the recently released memos which showed no indication of Plame's identity being secret were actually marked secret. You can read our entire exchange HERE, and I figured I'd break down the evidence. First off, let's look at THE PICTURE of the memo:
What you'll notice, and what the Left is trying to point out, is that the memo has the word Secret on it. It says UNCLASSIFIED at the top, but that designation was given to it recently. With all this shown, you would assume the entire memo was classified when this information was released. That's simply not so. Right under the word secret, you'll see the abbreviation DECL, which was on this original document in 2003. If you look this up in the military dictionary, you'll see the following definition:
declassify- To cancel the security classification of an item of classified matter. Also called DECL.
What does this say? This memo, which talks of Valerie Plame's identity, was declassified BEFORE any leak in 2003, thus there was NO illegal activity. If that isn't enough, I researched the type of declassification this was, and found the following:
1.6 X 1: Reveal an intelligence source, method or activity, or a cryptologic system or activity
You will notice from the picture, that this is a 1.6 X 1 type of declassification. This actually means that the information was purposely declassified so that this intelligence source, method, or activity information would be available. Valerie Plame wasn't covert, or else this would have STAYED secret.
- Justin Higgins's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Julianne Branch
Lola Kramer (not verified) — Wed, 2008-11-12 21:53bq1o6214kdga0bjo
click here to see what I
cao (not verified) — Fri, 2007-03-23 15:40click here to see what I mean about thinking meat's 'saved pages'. Look in the browser address.
That's interesting, I came
cao (not verified) — Fri, 2007-03-23 15:38That's interesting, I came in from google and this page was saved by meatbrain. What is he doing saving pages from our blogs for? What could possibly be the purpose for the saved pages of our blogs to show up on google searches?
I tried to leave a comment and it automatically brought up meatbrain's information. Sorry about that, my dear Justin, I can't quite figure out how all this happened.
I'll repeat it under my own signature:
Meatbrain is as dumb as a rock.
Although there are some odd things happening with our posts out there on google...
As I said before, meatbrain
meatbrain (not verified) — Fri, 2007-03-23 15:36As I said before, meatbrain is as dumb as a rock.
RT wrote: "Any deletion in
meatbrain (not verified) — Tue, 2006-04-25 10:42RT wrote: "Any deletion in this instance is sheerly a result of a technical glitch, and you
Bonus - at the Sun, check
Tom Maguire (not verified) — Mon, 2006-04-24 16:03Bonus - at the Sun, check this link (which they did not publicize):
http://www.nysun.com/pics/31062_1.php
The memo from the INR analyst at the Feb 19 meeting refers to Ms. Plame as "Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD managerial typ eand the wife of AMb. Joe Wilson...".
Is "managerial type" commonly understood in the IC to mean "NOC"?
What about "pencil-pusher"?
Now, please
Tom Maguire (not verified) — Mon, 2006-04-24 15:28Now, please
IT WAS A GLITCH MORON!
Justin Higgins — Sun, 2006-04-30 21:37IT WAS A GLITCH MORON!
The 'glitch' keeps deleting
meatbrain (not verified) — Wed, 2006-04-26 10:43The 'glitch' keeps deleting my comments... as shown in a copy of this page as it was after my last post here, made yesterday morning. A very selective 'glitch', it seems, is intent on deleting just my comments (so far as I can tell). Funny how that works, isn't it, RT?
Open and honest debate is impossible in any forum where certain statements are capriciously edited out.
I already explained, and it
Justin Higgins — Wed, 2006-04-26 19:12I already explained, and it only deleted ONE COMMENT. It was accidental, as I was deleting spam at the time.
Where EXACTLY did I claim
Justin Higgins — Sun, 2006-04-23 10:39Where EXACTLY did I claim that meatbrain?
No one was outed! She wasn't
Justin Higgins — Fri, 2006-04-21 02:09No one was outed! She wasn't covert!
meat, Using the your
MikeN (not verified) — Tue, 2006-04-25 23:07meat,
Using the your logic...where is the proof that anything was "leaked"?
Patrick Fitzgerald is an
Ray (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 16:39Patrick Fitzgerald is an extremely thorough prosecutor. He wouldn't be investigating this case if no crime actually occurred. The issue at this point is not "whether" a crime occurred but who was involved in it.
It's interesting to note that Valerie Plame was gathering information on Iran's nuclear program at the time she was outed by the Bush administration. In their petty, partisan, vengeance they jeopardized our national security.
And since the wonderful G.
meatbrain (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 14:08And since the wonderful G. Bush said it, I automatically do not believe it. After all, the "man" lied, people died and he never won the election, anyway, he stole it.
I have to agree with you
Justin Higgins — Thu, 2006-04-20 04:20I have to agree with you there MikeN. As a whole, I originally thought this proved more than it did. Afterwards, it still assists in proving that no leak occured, but it does so in a more subtle and assisting way. This isn't a smoking gun, but it's a piece of the case.
Meatbrain, nice to meat you.
Proteus (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 03:58Meatbrain, nice to meat you. Two questions--do you believe everything the CIA says? And do journalists have any more credibility when they cite information from "anonymous sources" as opposed to your "pseudonymous somebodies"?
Admin--I like the fact that you noticed the little details. Maybe your initial analysis gave a premature verdict, but none the less you getting closer to the truth. Props to you.
What "military intelligence
meatbrain (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 01:46What "military intelligence analysts"? I see a lot of pseudonymous somebodies making claims -- like "I am a retired Military Intelligence Analyst". Where are the experts who are willing to put their opinions over their names?
What you're trying now is called "argument from authority", RT -- and it's a well-recognized logical fallacy. Of course, you consulted NO ONE before making your original claim that the paragraph that contained Plame's name wasn't marked secret at all. Alas, you got called on that little fib. Thus the sudden change in tactic -- oh, look, a whole bunch of folks with no names agree with you!
And you still don't dare touch the fact that the CIA requested the investigation into the leak of Plame
Ya, I had to reword some of
Justin Higgins — Thu, 2006-04-20 01:38Ya, I had to reword some of it my update to be more clear.
Bah...I'm so slow
MikeN (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 01:36Bah...I'm so slow sometimes...
If your position is that even AFTER explicit declassification (by whatever authority/at whatever time) the Plame info remains while other sensitive info was redacted is proof that she wasn't what Lyin' Joe claimed...I now concur.
Good work!!!
meathead blogs standing
kender (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 00:59meathead blogs standing because his ass is too sore to sit.....I've been busy meathead, but I'm gonna get to you when time permits sunshine, do not doubt that fact, or the fact that you be proven even stupider than you have been already.
Now Randi Rhoades can shut
kender (not verified) — Thu, 2006-04-20 00:47Now Randi Rhoades can shut here damned mouth about this....but then, what would she have to lie about then?
Mike, you'll see a full
Justin Higgins — Thu, 2006-04-20 01:22Mike, you'll see a full discussion on this very issue, in which several military intelligence analysts look into the issue at length, at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617962/posts
Any deletion in this
Justin Higgins — Sun, 2006-04-23 22:25Any deletion in this instance is sheerly a result of a technical glitch, and you're welcome to re-post.
Meatbrain, what are you
Justin Higgins — Sun, 2006-04-23 22:24Meatbrain, what are you talking about? I've deleted nothing.
Meatbrain is as dumb as a
Cao (not verified) — Sun, 2006-04-23 19:30Meatbrain is as dumb as a rock.
Probably why the brain is floating in formaldehyde
Evidence Proves Plame’s
Cao's Blog (not verified) — Sun, 2006-04-23 19:28Evidence Proves Plame’s identity was no secret
Justin has a picture of the memo that proves it.
It was already pretty clear from their pictures in Vanity Fair, and what was widely known on the Washington DC cocktail circuit–but Justin presents additional evidence.
Their claims about being ...
MikeN, I'd love to reply,
meatbrain (not verified) — Sun, 2006-04-23 21:37MikeN, I'd love to reply, but "Real Teen" has decided my questions are just too darned hard to answer. He's deleted my last comment in this thread, and failed to explain why. Ask him if I'm still allowed to speak.
Plame wasnt covert and she
keith ivy (not verified) — Fri, 2006-04-21 06:00Plame wasnt covert and she is married to a LIAR, joe shmoe wilson. ALOHA!
Pardon me. Upon further
Proteus (not verified) — Fri, 2006-04-21 03:57Pardon me. Upon further review, it was Ray that said, "Patrick Fitzgerald is an extremely thorough prosecutor. He wouldn
Meatbrain, based on what you
Proteus (not verified) — Fri, 2006-04-21 03:48Meatbrain, based on what you said, you'd better hope that Bob Novak's recent statements are untrue:
"The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013819.php
I like your reasoning, MB. The CIA has lied before (they are, after all, both and intelligence agency and a COUNTERintelligence agency) but you easily believe them this time. But the president "lied" once (based partly on faulty CIA intelligence, by the way) and you automatically think he lies every time. Why not join the rest of us in thoughtful discussion and leave the your prejudices at home?