Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, where are Bilmore and Slave?

Plame's name marked secret (b/c she's covert) in WH memo

(yes, it's not breaking news, except to some).

Fun, fun. So in addition to Plame being undercover, we now have a message from 11 former CIA agents to the Republican Machine: F. U., and the horse you came in on.

• Eleven former intelligence officers are speaking up on behalf of CIA officer Valerie Plame, saying leaking her identity may have damaged national security and threatens the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering.
  
  In a statement to congressional leaders, the former officers said the Republican National Committee has circulated talking points focusing on the idea that Plame was not working undercover and deserved no protection.

The open letter is here.

• We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert
  Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and,
  directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.
  
  The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to
  supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this “talking point”:
  
  Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, “And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job
  at Langley. She went back and forth every single day.”
  
  Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, “Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them.”
  
  Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, “And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any
  meaningful investigation about that.”
  
  House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, “It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might
  have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of topsecret
  definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day.”
  
  These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who “work at a desk” in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.
  
  While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation’s security.
  
  We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the
  Commander-in-Chief.

I wait with anticipation for the GOP Machine's response to be that these are clearly liberal CIA pansies, and that the CIA is filled with a bunch of sissified Democratic UN-lovers who want to take down The Great Man, and there's no big deal in blowing cover anyway.

They will lose.

The American public has sucked at the teat of too many James Bond and Jack Ryan novels to think that it doesn't matter. Roy Blount, Norm Coleman, and all other Rove jackass apologists will remember one step too late that in those books, it was the then-current Administration that was filled with the malcontents, the incompetents, and the malicious. Undercover agents are the good guys, fellas, and if it becomes clear that Plame was deserving of cover, and Rove/Libby/et al blew it in order to score some political points, I don't give a damn what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act says. It will get ugly.

Gattigap