The Hollywood Liberal

12 Responses to “Will Fitzgerald go After Cheney???”

1. Buzz Says:
   February 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

   I wonder if Bush will pardon more than Clinton did.

   And if this isn’t a whole bunch of bullshit.

   Republicans and Donothingcrates and there billion dollar corporations destroying our country.

   And we all look away and keep toeing party lines

2. Bill Says:
   March 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm

   Well lets see last time I looked you didn’t pardon a person if they weren’t convicted of something. As for the Billion dollar corps. destroying this country would you please tell me just how this country got to were it is now. But than I guess Corps. like WalMart, Kmart, Sears, Ford, GM, Exxon, GE, Microsoft, IBM, and the likes are just killing this country. I got an idea if you don’t like what the Corps. are doing than why don’t you just quit buying their products and make your own.

3. Bill Says:
   March 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm

   HL would you mind telling me just what it is that Fitzgerald is supposed to be going after Cheney for. There wasn’t any law broken and what they are charging Libby with has nothing to do with Wilson. Libby is charged with a five-count indictment of Libby includes obstruction of justice (one count), making false statements (two counts), and perjury (two counts), with the trial date in United States v. Libby set for early 2007.
   It has already been proven that Wilson wasn’t a NOC and never was. Her civil case of Plame v. Cheney hasn’t gone anywhere.
   Oh and here’s a fact for you to delete.
   Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s ongoing investigation has not determined that the public exposure of Plame’s name violated any criminal statutes.
   So keep dreaming about Fitzgerald going after Cheney for a crime.

4. onthefence Says:
   March 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm

   The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 – On March 1, 2007, Rep. Henry A. Waxman along with Reps. Platts, Clay, and Burton introduced H.R. 1255, the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007, to nullify a 2001 presidential executive order and restore public access to presidential records.
   US’s Iraq oil grab is a done deal – “By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies.” – US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999
   http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402
   THE PEOPLE V. RICHARD CHENEY
   Resolved, that Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that these articles of impeachment be submitted to the American people
   GQ, March 2007
   When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but even these were left deliberately vague; as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an “impeachable offense” is “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

   To the credit of this nation, despite the relative ease of impeachment, only seventeen officials have sunk to such ignominious depths that the process has been invoked. The reasons for impeachment have ranged from the outrageous to the banal: from putting political enemies in jail (Judge James H. Peck, 1830) to cheating on taxes (Judge Harry E. Claiborne, 1986); from being rude to Congress (“unmindful of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches,” President Andrew Johnson, 1868) to being a drunkard (“a man of loose morals and intemperate habits,” Judge John Pickering, 1803). One president was even impeached for having the good taste to keep his sex life private (concealing “the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee,” President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998).

   In the case of George W. Bush, there may be any number of reasons not to add an eighteenth name to the list. These range from the moderate (that two consecutive presidential impeachments would do more harm than good to the nation) to the provocative (that while Bush has been wrong about a staggering number of issues, he is too hapless to be held accountable for it) to the pragmatic (that even if Bush were impeached, we would still be stuck with Vice President Cheney). There is even, for those inclined to such things, an argument by design: that the president is the president, and therefore God designed it that way.

   But none of these apply to Vice President Cheney, and not only because it was Cheney (and not God, or George W. Bush, or anybody else) who selected himself as vice president back in 2000. With Cheney, there are also no lingering questions about capacity, motive, or malice. Over the past six years, as the country has spiraled into military misadventure, fiscal madness, and environmental meltdown, the vice president has not merely been wrong about the issues; he has been duplicitous, deceitful, and deliberately destructive to the American democracy. These things can no longer be denied by rational minds:
   That in the buildup to war in Iraq, the vice president, lacking confidence in the true casus belli, conspired to invent additional ones, misrepresenting the available intelligence, crafting new “intelligence,” and then spreading these falsehoods to the public, perverting the democratic process that he is sworn to uphold.
   That as the war devolved into occupation, the vice president again sabotaged the democratic system, developing back channels into the Coalition Provisional Authority, a body not under his purview, to remove some of the most effective staff and replace them with his own loyal supplicants—undercutting America’s best effort at war in order to expand his own power.

   That in his domestic capacity, the vice president has been equally reckless with the trust of his office, converting the vice presidency into a de facto prime ministership, conducting secret meetings with secret policy boards to determine national policy and then refusing to share the details of those meetings with the other branches of government.

   Finally, that the vice president has repeatedly promoted the interests of a corporation, Halliburton, over the interests of the nation, causing untold harm to American economic, military, and public health.

   For these and other offenses against the nation, Vice President Cheney, clearly, is guilty of crimes against the state.

   Herewith, in the absence of action for the past six years by a timid Republican Congress and a refusal to act by the new Democratic leadership, we, the Fourth Estate, take the mantle of indictment unto ourselves and present these Articles of Impeachment, to be adopted by the United States House of Representatives and voted upon by the United States Senate, at their earliest possible leisure:

   Resolved
   That Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; that the evidence hereinafter set out sustains six articles of impeachment justifying immediate removal from office; that said articles shall be adopted by the House of Representatives; and that the same shall be endorsed by the Senate, to wit:

   ARTICLE I
   In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately obstructed the nation’s intelligence-gathering capacity, in that:

   (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president endeavored to bypass the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as the nation’s principal filter of raw intelligence, directing subordinates within the agency to “stovepipe” raw intelligence directly to his office.

   (2) As a result of this policy, the vice president became privy to unanalyzed, unverified data that should not have been available to him, including documents that seemed to indicate that Saddam Hussein may have attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger in February 1999.
   (3) Relying on these documents, and ignoring the CIA’s assessment that they were most likely fabrications, the vice president proceeded to publicize the Niger documents and encouraged the president to refer to them in his 2003 State of the Union address, deliberately obstructing the role of the CIA and promoting known forgeries to bolster his case for war.
   (4) At the same time, acting personally and through his subordinates, the vice president conspired with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to create a substitute intelligence agency within the Pentagon, known as the Office of Special Plans, with instructions to contradict unfavorable information emerging from the CIA.

   (5) Under this mandate, the Office of Special Plans sought to undermine the authority legally vested in the CIA, cultivating intelligence sources known to be discredited and embarking on extralegal “missions” to Iraq without consulting the nation’s legitimate intelligence services.

   (6) In these distortions of the nation’s intelligence-gathering process, the vice president, acting personally and through subordinates, has obstructed the democratic institutions of the nation and undermined the rule of law.

   In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

   Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

   ARTICLE II
   Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has personally deceived the American people, in that:

   (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and thereafter, the vice president became aware that no certain evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

   (a) A report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluding that “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

   (b) A National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation’s intelligence agencies, admitting to “little specific information” about chemical weapons in Iraq.

   (c) A later section of the same NIE, admitting “low confidence” that Saddam Hussein “would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland,” and equally “low confidence” that he would “share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa’ida.”
   (d) An addendum by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserting that Hussein’s quest for yellowcake uranium in Africa was “highly dubious” and that his acquisition of certain machine parts, considered by some to be evidence of a nuclear program, were “not clearly linked to a nuclear end use.”
   (e) A report by the United States Department of Energy, stating that the machinery in question was “poorly suited” for nuclear use.

   (2) Despite these questions and uncertainties, and having full awareness of them, the vice president nevertheless proceeded to misrepresent the facts in his public statements, claiming that there was no doubt about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and that a full-scale nuclear program was known to exist, including:

   (a) March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.”

   (b) March 19, 2002: “We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.”

   (c) March 24, 2002: “He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.”

   (d) May 19, 2002: “We know he’s got chemical and biological…we know he’s working on nuclear.”

   (e) August 26, 2002: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

   (f) March 16, 2003: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

   (3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda—resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that “no credible evidence” for such a link existed, and the CIA’s determination that Hussein “did not have a relationship” with Al Qaeda—the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including:

   (a) December 2, 2002: “His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.”

   (b) January 30, 2003: “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.”

   (c) March 16, 2003: “We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.”

   (d) September 14, 2003: “We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons.”

   (e) October 10, 2003: “He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda—providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.”
   (f) January 9, 2004: “Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services…have worked together on a number of occasions.”

   (g) January 22, 2004: “There’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government”

   (h) June 18, 2004: “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.”

   (4) Through all of these misrepresentations, the vice president knowingly skewed the public’s perception of reality, clouded the nation’s ability to weigh evidence, and willfully disrupted the function of American democracy.

   In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

   Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

   ARTICLE III
   In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately embraced and sheltered a known criminal, to the great detriment of American policy, in that:

   (1) During the months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president, acting personally and through his subordinates, granted special access to the Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, relying on Chalabi for intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, despite an outstanding warrant for Chalabi’s arrest on charges of bank fraud in the nation of Jordan, grave concerns from the CIA about Chalabi’s credibility, and a 2002 British assessment that Chalabi was “a convicted fraudster.”

   (2) As the initial stage of the war concluded and Chalabi’s claims proved false, the vice president nevertheless continued privately to champion Chalabi as a leader for the new Iraqi government, ignoring a litany of troubling accusations and events, including:

   (a) May 19, 2004: The Department of Defense discontinues monthly payments to Chalabi, pending charges of fraud.

   (b) May 20, 2004: U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, storm Chalabi’s home, seizing documents and computers for a criminal probe.

   (c) June 2004: The New York Times reports that Chalabi has disclosed U.S. secrets to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

   (3) When an employee of the Coalition Provisional Authority named Thomas Warrick voiced concerns about Chalabi to his superiors, the vice president intervened to demand that Warrick be fired, causing Warrick’s unique contributions to the occupation—including a series of prescient written warnings about the rise of insurgency—to be lost, and the nation’s ability to function at war compromised.
   (4) As late as November 2005, the vice president continued to offer public support and safe harbor to Chalabi, inviting him to visit the White House and providing personal welcome to a known criminal.

   In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

   Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

   ARTICLE IV
   In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people, in that:

   (1) In September 2003, the vice president claimed to have “severed all my ties with the company” and to have “no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,” where in truth he did, at that time, continue to earn more than $150,000 per year in delayed compensation from Halliburton, as well as a portfolio in excess of 230,000 stock options of the company, worth more than $10 million.

   (2) Bolstered by this economic incentive to promote the interests of Halliburton, the vice president did choose to remain silent as the company was exposed in a series of financial scandals at the expense of the American people, including:

   (a) February 2002: Halliburton is forced to pay $2 million after being charged by the Justice Department for fraud committed against the Pentagon during the vice president’s tenure as CEO.

   (b) May 2002: The company is investigated by the SEC for fraudulent accounting practices and inflation of its stock price during the vice president’s tenure as CEO.

   (c) March 2003: The company is investigated by a congressional committee for receiving favorable contracts from the Pentagon, outside normal review processes.

   (d) May 2003: The company admits to having bribed a Nigerian official with millions of dollars in exchange for tax exemptions.

   (e) December 2003: The company is found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, a unit of the Pentagon, to have overcharged and defrauded the government of more than $100 million.
   (f) January 2004: The company admits that its employees have accepted $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti company in exchange for a portion of U.S. government contracts.

   (3) Through his silence on these and other scandals involving his former employer and source of several million dollars in assets, the vice president exhibited not only a failure of leadership but a lack of integrity that has tarnished the office of the vice president.

   In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

   Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

   ARTICLE V
   Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has granted improper and unlawful influence over national policy to an anonymous cabal of corporate lobbyists, in that:

   (1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy.

   (2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

   (3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.

   In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

   Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

   ARTICLE VI
   In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
   (1) On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the vice president did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group.
   (2) In September 2002, and prior thereto, the vice president did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group.

   (3) In both of these cases, the requested names and documenting papers were deemed necessary to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to the vice president’s reliance on special interests and corporate lobbyists in the formation of national policy, and the release of said papers was ordered by the United States District Court and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals.

   (4) In refusing to produce said names, transcripts, and papers, and by continuing to keep the deliberations of the National Energy Policy Development Group secret, the vice president, substituting his judgment for the authority of the federal courts and ignoring the doctrine of congressional oversight, did assume to the office of the vice president authority, functions, and judgments forbidden by the United States Constitution.

   In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

   Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

   Wil S. Hylton is a GQ correspondent.

   Does this clear things up for you, Bill???

5. Buzz Says:
   March 3rd, 2007 at 8:34 pm

   Bill

   I was talking about the parties of the republicans and democrats and thier billion dollar political corporations.

   I was speaking to the fact that a president gets to pardon someone that was convicted. It is crap that he gets to over rule a courts decesion.

6. onthefence Says:
   March 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm

   It just doesn’t feel like JUSTICE.

7. Bill Says:
   March 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

   Well Buzz if you are tired of the Billion dollar political corps. than quit donating money to them. Its that simple. If you don’t donate than they don’t get the money.

8. Buzz Says:
   March 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

   Bill

   Thanks for the advice. I figured that out already though.

9. (: Tom :) Says:
   March 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

   HL would you mind telling me just what it is that Fitzgerald is supposed to be going after Cheney for.

   Exposing the identity of a CIA NOC while in wartime. It’s called treason. Go look it up sometime…

10. Bill Says:
    March 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Tom if you can’t post something that is a fact than just SHUT UP.
    1 She was NEVER a NOC
    2 If you knew what the law says than you wouldn’t even be posting what you just did. And justr to help you out here is the law.The act defines a covert agent as an intelligence officer serving overseas or who has served overseas within the previous five years. By 2003, when her identity was revealed, Plame had been living in Washington, D.C., for six years, her husband wrote in a book published last year.

    3 You need to learn to start reading something other than your media dribble because they are lieing to you and not telling you the truth about most everything.
    If you knew how to research things than you would know that Plame’s case againest Cheney is going no were. And if you knew how to research things than you would know that the CIA has said that she wasn’t a NOC for many different reasons and if at one time she had been a NOC when she married Wilson that status was removed. It was her own husband that exposed her identity not Libby, Cheney or anyone else. If it had been Libby than they would have charged him with it. But they didn’t so I guess like HL you are WRONG as normal.

11. (: Tom :) Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 5:41 am

    Bill maybe you could take your own advice and stop spewing lies around here. Sorry O’Reilly Junior, when idiot neocons like you tell me to SHUT UP then I know I’m doing something right…

    1. Prove it. I didn’t know you were in the CIA and could tell me this from your awesome stock of knowledge. Oh, that’s right- you’re blowing smoke out of your ass again.

    2. I do believe that you can also be a NOC if you are represented as an officer of an overseas company (as opposed to being represented as a CIA agent), which was certainly the case here.

    Either way, as soon as her cover was blown there were many americans overseas who were targeted and exposed as possible CIA agents. Why do you support murdering american citizens, traitor? Good job – defending the targeting of innocents overseas so that the Veep could engage in petty personal partisan politics. I can only imagine how proud your parents must be of their little Hitlerjurgen…

    3. You need to stop spewing your neocon dreck, and parroting Republican’t talking points. Just because I don’t read WorldNutDaily, it doesn’t mean I’m listening to “media dribble”. You got proof of your unsubstantiated allegation that Plame’s civil suit is going nowhere? [rhetorical question] Or is this just some more smoke you’re blowing out of your ass again? [/rhetorical question]

    Wait – I’m supposed to believe your nonsense about what the CIA says? Without any sort of substantiation (links to CIA sites where they state Plame was not a NOC since she married Wilson? And while I’ve read (in reputable sources) that she was working for Brewster Jennings after she was married? Your brand of “logic” might work over in FReeperville, but over here we usually use things called “facts” and “reason”. You should try it sometime.

    Guess again, Reich wing troll. Like HL, I state facts which make your sad little melon go haywire. You’ve been so wrong for so long, I wonder if you will ever get anything right again in your miserable little life. Buh-bye!

12. Bill Says:
    March 13th, 2007 at 9:24 am

    Poor little Tom. It just drives you nuts that someone doesn’t believe your crap doesn’t it. And that there is someone that has facts that prove you wrong. Just like HL you don’t want to know the facts and when someone puts the facts in front of you they are “neocon” propaganda. Sorry your wrong again and that just drives you crazy as well doesn’t it:)
    Well lets begin once again. Plame was never a deep cover NOC and that is straight from her bosses mouth. Her cover was blown and her “life as a NOC” was comming to an end when she started dating Wilson. Why because of the fact that he was a diplomat. Try reading some other than your comic book and you’ll see that Tom. I’ll make finding it easy for you. just put the www first. .time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031027-524486,00.html
    If you don’t like that than how about this froma a CIA vet that handled NOC’s.But several CIA veterans questioned how someone with an embassy background could have successfully passed herself off as a private-sector consultant with no government connections. Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, “never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover’s completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I’d go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I’d pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I’d give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever.” Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that “the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn’t an NOC, period.” After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: “You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don’t drive into headquarters with your car, ever.” A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame “may not be alone in that category, so I don’t want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point.
    Or maybe you’d like to read this instead.
    In the Washington Times, Bill Gertz states that, according to U.S. officials, “The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation…. Mrs. Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy,” and, “[i]n a second compromise…a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.”