Who still believes that Plame was not an CIA undercover agent?

Question

Fitzgerald point blank stated that she was.

This is a simple, "Yes," or, "No," question.

Fitzgerald said it at that big news conference at the end of the trial. No, I don't have the direct script, but I remember him point blank stating this.

Answer 1

I KNOW she was. Neo-cons do not care about facts or the truth. They simply want to protect their fellow neo-con president who is the living example of what evil truly is. Neo-cons are liars who live in an altered reality of lies. Even when the truth is in the public square, neo-cons will still lie while staring right at it.

Answer 2

Yes. The fact of the matter is, there would not have been an investigation if the CIA hadn't requested it. They felt that an undercover agent's identity had been compromised, so they requested an investigation. They cannot, by law, request an investigation like that unless they are on the record that the agent was undercover. It is a quirk of the law that a request to investigate a violation is confirmation of what was allegedly leaked.

Answer 3

Sad how people on here blindly follow limburger. She WAS A CIA AGENT, plain and simple. She was outed by the "dumbaya" administration, and Cheney wanted it to happen because her husband Wilson told the truth. There were no WMD's in Iraq, and because Cheney wanted to go to war so bad (so his company can reap the profits), that he went after his wife for revenge.

Yes, yes, yes she was an undercover agent for the CIA...

Answer 4

I also remember that the woman who WROTE THE OFFICIAL GUIDELINES for determining when a person was classified as covert in the CIA stated emphatically on more than one occasion that Plame did not fit the criteria. So, no, I do not believe that Plame was a CIA undercover agent.

Answer 5

IF "Fitzgerald" had stated that Plame had been a covert agent, and she had been, he would have been prosecuted.

Duh.

The woman worked at a public CIA office and handed out business cards with CIA printed on them.

Real covert there.

PS: Fitzgerald was a special prosecutor without specific knowledge of Plames status in the CIA. As Victoria Toensing; one of the people who wrote the law Fitzgerald claimed, but could not prove, was broken, said:

Victoria Toensing is the attorney who drafted the IIPA. She, too, testified before Waxman's committee, and she had handy the Senate Report on the IIPA, that spelled out what the Act was intended to cover. Referring to page 16 of the Senate Report Toensing stated (under oath): "Notably, the legislation limited coverage of U.S. citizen informants or sources (agents) also to situations where they 'reside and act outside the United States.' "

Gee, another propagandized demophyte once again shot down by the facts. Common sense should have done it, but facts work when they are not ignored by people who are purposely remaining ignorant.

PPS: Who still believes that Plame was not an CIA undercover agent? YES (Now does that make any sense at all? :-)

How about:

Who still believes that Plame was not an CIA undercover agent? NO (Now does that make any sense at all? :-)

PPPS: The woman worked in the United States as an analyst and took LEAVE to accompany her husband out of the country. She was and had been living in the United States for years prior to any articles. Even if she had been a covert agent, which she was not, she was no longer a covert agent.

Yes, the CIA does send field agents out as diplomats. No, these agents are not the wives or family of Ambassadors for obvious political and security reasons. A spy has to be a little less conspicuous than being the wife of an Ambassador. Duh.

Answer 6

Who cares what he "point blank" said...He's a Democrat with a political agenda. And it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA...it wasn't any big secret...this whole thing was just a political gotcha game which is played constantly in Washington. WHO CARES!!! What happened to her???? Did she get captured???? Was she tortured???? Did she lose the microfilm????? NO, NO, NO, and NO. It's all BS politics.

Answer 7

Yes she was, and when she wrote her book, it was sent to the CIA to vet it and much as redacted because they didn't want her to name places and people because it might blow other who are uncover as well

Answer 8

YES and if this was not a "yes or no " question I could easily prove it by bringing up things like the fact that both Cuba and Russia already knew her identity.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

Answer 9

She wasn't and that is a fact sorry to disappoint you

Here's a bit from an article on the subject that raises the important questions. Not mentioned is that apparently Hayden is in tight with the democrats.

Here is the stuff from the article:

Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Answer 10

No. Of course not.

I had a Top Secret Security Clearance. I know the CIA bldg.
Been there. Done that.

She had been a little secretary for 5 years.
(Use your head...... If you are an "Undercover Agent", you don't just waddle into the CIA Bldg five days a week.
Use your head.......NEVER BE GULLIBLE.)

Answer 11

The 'operative' question is that the people who outed her did not know if she was covert or not; therefore they were in violation of the law and subject to a charge of treason, but we all know that ' personal responsibility' stops at the White House, Paint It Black!