This is DouglasS's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following DouglasS's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
DouglasS
Recent Activity
cecil: "If you prefer, change the argument to 'he can't hang that on a legally binding, witnessed agreement.' " I do prefer that, because it's doesn't embody the false claim that SF-312 is nothing more than "a briefing booklet." However, it still uses a straw man, because I never claimed that CIA, DOJ, Comey, Fitz and various judges, who all took the matter seriously, were all simply upset about the fact that Libby violated SF-312. However, we should be upset about that. Unless we have exceptionally low standards. You're doing a nice job of proving that you do, indeed, have exceptionally low standards. You make this obvious in many ways. For example, you make this obvious when you indicate that the idea of violating an agreement means absolutely nothing to you, and that only laws, not agreements, can even possibly be violated: How do you "violate" the SF-312? Are you confusing that with an actual, you know, law? "your SF-312 fixation is ridiculous" Nice job adding more proof: you think expecting senior officials to respect the agreements they sign is a "fixation," and "ridiculous." Thanks for this vivid demonstation of how the party of values actually feels about values. "especially when one considers that a 'Standard Form' is a blank" You're being completely incoherent. Something that's truly "blank" has nothing on it at all. SF-312 is not blank except for where the signatures go. "Why folks normally refer to a signed one as an 'NDA.' " You can call SF-312 an "NDA" if you like. I don't see what this does for you. "You've gone from inventing a document to pretending Wilson saw it and knew it was a forgery." Uh, no. I haven't invented a document. I'm simply paying attention to what SSCI and R-S told us, which is that CIA, in 2/02, had verbatim text of the agreement/accord. The invention is all yours: we're still waiting for you to tell us why you pointed toward a different document, contrary to what was reported by SSCI and R-S. As far as "knew it was a forgery," there's nothing surprising about that, since R-S told us the verbatim text revealed the forgery. As far as "Wilson saw it," there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim that "Wilson saw it." I claimed only that he either saw it, or was given information about it. This is highly plausible. In fact, it would be much more mysterious to imagine that no one said anything whatsoever to him about the verbatim text, given the timing, the nature of his mission, and Plame's job. "It [the INR memo] was marked 'Top Secret' and it's still irrelevant to a discussion about Libby." It seems to me that you're suggesting that various folks (like Cheney) told Libby about Plame, but neglected to mention that her employment status was classified. Really? How do you know? I think it is generally assumed that the White House heard about Plame via the INR memo. That memo is marked "secret." So who, in your narrative, dropped the ball and forgot to convey that information? The tooth fairy? "your 'cover page' winge was particularly silly, since your own link describes doc 5 as the 'Agreement Cover Letter.' " As usual, you're being completely incoherent. You're blowing pure smoke by making a statement that's both false and irrelevant. I have no idea what you mean by "your own link," since I can find no place where any source of mine uses that phrase ("agreement cover letter"). You have it in quotes, as if it's an exact quote. Really? I notice that the relevant google ("agreement cover letter" niger) turns up essentially nothing. If I want to try to guess what you mean by "your own link," I suppose I could assume you're talking about eriposte, who I've cited several times as a credible source. However, what he calls "doc 5" is definitely not an "Agreement Cover Letter." In fact, it's not even a "Cover Letter." In fact, it's not even a "Letter." Eriposte's "doc 5" is this. Also see here. This is known as an "annex," which "details the alleged approval to the alleged sale by the State Court of Niger." This is a document which is peripheral to what we've discussed so far. Why are you dragging in the idea of "doc 5," all of a sudden? Maybe you'll tell us. Meanwhile, here's what's silly, and still pointedly unexplained: your claim that we had verbatim text of the 'presidential letter.' Why did you make that up, and present it flatly, as if it were a proven fact? "it's a bit of a mystery why you linked those forgeries in the first place, since you claim the verbatim text one isn't amongst 'em." First of all, it's not just something I claim. It's something that's apparent to anyone who pays attention to SSCI and R-S they both told us that we had, in 2/02, verbatim text of the agreement/accord. The documents currently available to the public make reference to the agreement/accord, but the agreement/accord is plainly missing. Anyway, there's no mystery in why I "linked those forgeries in the first place." They demonstrate that virtually all the documents we've seen are packed with childlike errors. This helps us to understand that the other document(s) we haven't seen are similar, if not worse. And we don't have to make any assumptions about this; R-S told us that what we held, the agreement/accord, contained errors which indicated the forgery. Also, SSCI and R-S do not tell us that CIA, in 2/02, held only the agreement/accord. What they communicate to us, essentially, is that CIA held at least the agreement/accord. This is another reason to take an interest in the other documents, which may also have been in CIA posession in verbatim-text form, in 2/02. "I know you love this endless parsing to see who can gotcha the most typos." It's not a question of "typos," just like it's not a question of "minutiae." You have presented outright fabrications that are distinct and material, and that have nothing to do with "typos." Claiming that I've pointed out "typos" is yet another fabrication on your part. And you (both individually and collectively) are still ducking all sorts of simple, fair, relevant questions that I outlined here.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "I have not claimed it [section 426] is not part of IIPA." Let's review. I said this: I told you that you were citing IIPA You responded as follows: And in fact I was not. You have claimed repeatedly that section 426 is not part of IIPA. Let's review a bit more. You cited IIPA's section 426 here: "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked And then you also said this: When reporting every detail the OVP “needs to know” they don’t have to break the law doing it. Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation. Undesignated = unclassified. (Emphasis added). I responded as follows: The law you're referring to is IIPA, right? Then you said this: No stupid. The laws wrt disclosure of classified information to authorized recepients. And you followed this with a passage from IIPA's definition section (section 426). Continuing down the same path, you then said this: By definition the information B received is not "classified". In this clip, your word "definition" is pointing toward one of your own comments, which I've cited, where you quote verbatim from IIPA's section 426. I responded as follows: What you are pointing to is IIPA. Then you said this: Liar Pound sand DumbasS Your link on the word "liar" points to IIPA's section 426 indirectly (via other comments of yours), and your link on the phrase "Pound sand DumbasS" is a direct link to IIPA's section 426. In other words, you repeatedly pointed at IIPA, and then repeatedly denied that what you were pointing to was IIPA. I then pointed this out to you, here. You then responded with a mealy-mouthed non-apology where you mumbled something about having made some kind of "false assumption." "In fact I have explicitly diagramed it as part of IIPA" Yes, you eventually saw the light and did so, but only after I proved that cecil, Toensing, Power Line, Novak, Max Boot, WSJ and Libby's lawyers all indicated that you were wrong. And now you're trying to pretend ("I have not claimed it is not part of IIPA") that you never said the foolish things you said. But of course in your typical incoherent style of being all over the map, and contradicting yourself from one nanosecond to the next, you then promptly claim, again, again, that section 426 is not part of IIPA: Quoting from 426 is not quoting from IIPA And let's see your full paragraph, since it's a classic of illogic, gibberish and double-talk: Quoting from 426 is not quoting from IIPA, it is quoting from a section of Subchapter IV that applies and is part of IIPA but would also apply to and be part of any other protection in the Subchapter as well. Did everyone catch that? So section 426 "is part of IIPA," but "quoting from 426 is not quoting from IIPA." Makes perfect sense. Just like your other creative claims, such as claiming that "not certain" and "uncertain" don't mean the same thing. "Where is your explanation how the definition in 426 is different from the executive order it is based on?" You're suggesting that "the definition in 426" is identical to the language in the executive order. Really? If the folks writing IIPA intended an identical meaning, why didn't they use identical language? Better yet, why not just incorporate the executive order's language, by reference?
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "if you are claiming it is an identity relationship rather than an incidental equality, you are inaccurate" Here's what I'm claiming: if referring to section 426 as part of IIPA is good enough for all the people I've cited, then it's good enough for me. Here's something else I'm claiming: it's very hard to tell which is larger, your ignorance or your arrogance. But you help the rest of us remember what the GOP is really all about, so please keep it up.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "Add another protection and your statement becomes false." Classic. English translation: "if the law said something other than what it says, then you'd be wrong. Along with cecil, Toensing, Libby's lawyer's et al." Thanks for that helpful report from planet boris. Back here on earth, the law says what it says. Here's a clue: if we were to someday "add another protection," then we might discover that it's no longer logical to call the law "IIPA," and it might end up with a different name. But for now, the law says what it says, and we call it "IIPA." And according to all the people I cited, section 426 is part of IIPA. And your vigorous claims otherwise prove only that you're an extraordinarily arrogant ignoramus.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
cecil: " 'Briefing booklet' is an attempt to deceive, instead of just common terminology." It's dawning on me that you have no idea how transparent you are. Yes, when you said "briefing booklet," it was indeed "an attempt to deceive." You said this: Fitz was authorized to conduct "a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information." He can't hang that on a briefing booklet . . . and neither can you. Those words imply that SF-312 is only "a briefing booklet," and not a legally binding, witnessed agreement. Yes, there is indeed such a thing as an SF-312 "briefing booklet" (what you call "common terminology"). But it's relatively unimportant, compared with the signed agreement. And most of the SF-312 language I've cited here comes from the agreement, not the "briefing booklet." It's not OK for you to pretend that SF-312 is nothing other than "a briefing booklet." "Since there was no underlying crime, there was no legitimate investigation to obstruct." Tell that to Judge Tatel, who said this (pdf): On the record before us, there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure. … It's quite amusing to notice that CIA (an executive department branch reporting to Bush) took this matter seriously, even though "there was no underlying crime," and that DOJ (an executive department branch reporting to Bush) also took this matter seriously, even though "there was no underlying crime," and that at least two Bush administration appointees (Comey and Fitzgerald) took this matter seriously, even though "there was no underlying crime." And then there are various judges, like Tatel and Walton. Face it: you're whining because you don't like the result. Claiming, as if it's a proven fact, that "there was no underlying crime," requires inventing all sorts of your own facts. Which is something you like to do, as I have proven. "Libby's supposed violation of the NDA doesn't fix that for you." I see you're still dragging that adorable little straw man around with you. I never claimed that Libby's violation of SF-312 assists Fitz with the IIPA questions. "The availability of 'verbatim text' at CIA HQ that could've spawned an investigation doesn't fix that for you." Actually, it does, because it is extremely plausible that Wilson saw that verbatim text (or information about it), and it's equally plausible that he would be coy regarding how he got to see it. In your typical style, you're offering assertions backed by neither facts not logic. "An espionage agent who whites out the markings on the crypto codes in section 798 would not be protected rom disclosure thereby" My hypothetical did not ask a question about "an espionage agent who whites out the markings." It asks a question about a person (with a security clearance) who subsequently gains possession of that document. "one couldn't pretend at trial that a certain bit of classified information was not to be protected because you'd found … an improperly marked copy" Really? That seems to be at odds with what boris is saying. He seems to be saying that only the person who deleted the markings is at fault, and any behavior downstream of that is fair game. "the basic hurdle for civil liability under the SF312: 'no basis to suggest, other than pure speculation' " Plame was a CIA employee. Many CIA employees have an employment status that's classified. This is enough to bring us out of the category of "pure speculation." Likewise for the fact that the INR memo was marked "secret." "most CIA officers are classified" Where did you find that particular straw man, which you're presenting as if it was an actual quote? I said "many," not "most." "the fact that they told us about her indicates she wasn't one of them" Another pseudo-quote. I have no idea where you got this from or what it's supposed to mean. "last I checked we were talking about a criminal case" You (individually and collectively) are choosing to be "talking [only] about a criminal case," which means you're doing a good job of reminding the rest of us that the GOP condones all sorts of improper behavior, as long as jail isn't involved. "What Libby got, according to witness testimony, was snippets of conversation with no indication it was classified" Which puts him in the same position as the person in my hypothetical, who somehow comes into posession of a document where the "secret" markings were redacted by someone else. You seem to be suggesting this person can do whatever they want. Right? "minutiae" Claiming you know things that you don't know, when those things are material, is not "minutiae." It's deception. I've proven that's what you've done in this thread. And the problem doesn't go away simply because you wave your hand and declare that your deceptions are "minutiae." "loads of patent BS" This is how many times you've proven that I've posted BS: zero. Meanwhile, you've posted plenty, and I've demonstrated that in detail. And you're still ducking all sorts of simple questions. Let's summarize a few of them: A) If the 16 words weren't about Niger, why did Tenet retract them? B) Why did Libby ask Miller to hide his identity? C) R-S tells us that CIA had enough information in 2/02 to detect the forgery. Why did you claim otherwise? D) Why did CIA ignore an obvious forgery for over a year? E) SSCI and R-S both told us that we had verbatim text of the agreement/accord. Why did you claim it was another document? F) Why is it that righty commentators and bloggers virtually never mention the "verbatim text?" G) Why did you accuse me of having a sinister reason to truncate an R-S footnote, when I had already posted both short and long versions of that footnote? I'm sure I forgot a few, but those are a good start.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "426 applies to all of the Subchapter, not just Section 421" Here's the part you don't get. IIPA is not "just Section 421." IIPA is "the Subchapter," which includes 421, 426, and a bunch of other things. Please keep telling us that you were not citing IIPA when you cited section 426. Even though Libby's lawyers and a bunch of other people have indicated what's obvious, that section 426 is part of IIPA. Your stubbornness is helpful, because we like being reminded of how appallingly dense you are.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "show EVIDENCE that Libby had REASON to be uncertain" Libby knew that Plame was a CIA employee. Libby knew that the employment status of many CIA employees is classified. As far as we can tell, Libby was given no affirmative indication that Plame's employment status was unclassified (in other words, there is good reason to believe that no CIA official ever offered to Libby a statement like this: "blab all you want, because her status is unclassified"). In the absence of such an affirmative indication that Plame's status was unclassified, Libby indeed "had REASON to be uncertain." I've explained all this already, but you're exceptionally obtuse. You've presented various reasons you think Libby was in a position to assume something. However, making an assumption is not the same as being certain. "B knows it's classified." How does B know it's classified? How is your claim that "B knows it's classified" any different than my claim that Libby "knows it's classified" (or knows it might be classified)? "Your DOD office received clearly marked classified infomation. It remains classified within that office no matter what." I didn't say that the two people work in the same office. Here, maybe you'd like this example better: B works for CIA and C works for the White House. B redacted the markings, and C posted the document on his blog. "B is in violation, not C" Is that what you're claiming in the example I cited, where B works for CIA and C works for the White House? You're claiming that it's fine for C to post the document on his blog? Actually, you do seem to be claiming that. Oh yeah, one more thing. The INR memo was indeed marked "SECRET," both on a page level, and a paragraph level. Why are you suggesting that Plame's employment information was unmarked? Is there a requirement for sentence-level and word-level markings?
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "in fact I was not [citing IIPA]. I quoted a definition that applies to the Subchapter that contains IIPA." Ah, I see. You were citing something "that applies" to IIPA, but is not part of IIPA. You should take that up with cecil, who described the section you cited as "the IIPA definitions section." You should also take it up with Toensing, who said this: The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure By "the law" she obviously means IIPA, and the business about "within five years" is obviously a reference to the same section 426 you're trying to claim is not part of IIPA. In other words, Toensing, like cecil, treats section 426 as part of IIPA. You should also take it up with Power Line, who also cite section 426, and introduce it with these words: The IIPA defines "covert agent" as follows In other words, Power Line, like Toensing and cecil, treat section 426 as part of IIPA. While you're at it, take it up with WSJ, who said this: Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations notes a key limitation in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act … : An employee of an intelligence agency is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute only if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." WSJ and Boot are making it clear that the "five years" business (which comes straght from section 426, which you insist is not part of IIPA) is "a key limitation in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act." While you're at it, notice that Toensing talked about creating IIPA, and talked about "the reasons we added the five years." In other words, she is plainly indicating that section 426 (where the "five years" business is found) is part of IIPA. While you're at it, notice how Novak described Toensing's testimony: Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act … if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. One more time: that business about "five years" comes straight from section 426, which you insist is not part of IIPA. Notice that Novak says "as defined by." Oddly enough, that's because section 426 is the definitions section of IIPA. Speaking of Toensing's testimony (pdf, p. 5-6), she explicitly references section 426, and describes the process of being involved in writing it, as part of the process of drafting IIPA. Finally, you should consider the opinion of some folks who obviously have no idea what they're doing: Libby's lawyers. They said this (pdf, p. 9): It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines “covert agent” differently. It states: “The term ‘covert agent’ means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency . . . (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 426. (Emphasis added.) This statement explicitly treats section 426 as part of "the IIPA." Logically enough, they say "the IIPA defines," because section 426 is the definitions section of IIPA. Which is exactly what cecil said. You can't imagine the entertainment value of watching you hold on to your bogus position, including gratuitous puerile vulgarities, even while cecil, Toensing, Power Line, WSJ, Boot, Novak, and Libby's lawyers all indicate that you're wrong. And your other so-called "facts" are just as bogus as this one. You raise wingnuttery to heights seldom seen, even around this joint. And that's saying a lot. Any day now, Bush will give you a medal.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "general law regarding disclosure of classified information … the definition sure appears to be a general one based on the link" You're still trying to deny reality. I guess you didn't notice the name of the subchapter: PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION Notice that pesky word again, "certain?" You have a lot of trouble with that word (even though it's being used in a different sense here). You continue to insist that you've found language that applies to classified information in general, even though the section title is trying to tell you that the definition you found applies only to "CERTAIN" national security information, i.e., "Identities Of Certain United States Undercover Intelligence Officers, Agents, Informants, And Sources." This is commonly known as IIPA. And the definition clearly applies only for the purposes of IIPA, and not outside IIPA. Did you read the definition that you're flogging so hard? Here are the first six words of that definition: For the purposes of this subchapter Hmm, "this subchapter." And what subchapter is "this subchapter?" The subchapter is this: SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION And what is SUBCHAPTER IV all about? That's laid out in the first section of the subchapter: Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources That's what's commonly known as IIPA. In other words, the definition you're citing is "for the purposes of" IIPA. One more time: this definition doesn't claim that all unmarked information is automatically considered unclassified (that's the patently absurd claim you're making). This definition only claims that leaks of unmarked information cannot lead to criminal prosecution under IIPA. One more time: you cited IIPA. I told you that you were citing IIPA. You denied that you were citing IIPA. You're still trying to deny that you were citing IIPA. Next up, you'll trot out some impressive symbolic logic demonstrating that IIPA is not really IIPA. It's not just that you can't keep track of the most basic underlying facts. It's that you're also aggressively, obnoxiously, boorishly committed to hanging on to your fraudulent facts, and impervious to even the clearest evidence. Thanks for this extraordinarily vivid demonstration of graduate-level wingnuttery, in full bloom. "marked to indicate its classified status" It makes sense that an executive order would instruct people to mark classified information. However, here's a statement you will not find in that executive order, or any executive order: 'if, for whatever reason, classified information is not marked properly, it is automatically considered unclassified and leaking it is considered fine and dandy.' That's the absurd proposition you're promoting. The folks who wrote SF-312 realize that proposition is absurd. That's why SF-312 says this: classified information is marked or unmarked classified information That's common sense. See if you can find some. Keep in mind where your absurd proposition takes us. DOD clerk A receives a classified document, marked as such. He thinks it would be funny to redact the classified markings. He hands the document to Clerk B (both A and B have security clearances). B thinks it would be funny to post the document on his blog. According to you, B's behavior is OK, right? Because "the term 'classified information' means information or material designated and clearly marked," right? And if it's not "clearly marked," then it's just not classified information, right?
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "Pound sand DumbasS" This is another one of those instances when I can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest. Let's review. I said this: What you are pointing to is IIPA You are claiming that what you are pointing to in your "Pound sand DumbasS" link is something other than IIPA. Really? I guess then you must mean that your pal cecil is a liar, since he referred to that exact page as "the IIPA definitions section." And here's some more proof, since we all know that cecil is not exactly a credible source. Please see the page linked here. Notice the window title: "Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Scroll down to the section called "definitions," and you'll see the exact text you're making such a big fuss about. That text, as cecil correctly said, is the definitions section of IIPA.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "Libby is NOT UNCERTAIN" This would be helpful: an example of Libby saying something like this, either directly or via a semi-official surrogate (you don't count): ''I was NOT UNCERTAIN about her classified status; I knew her employment status was unclassified; also, I always follow the general rule, much-promoted at JOM, that unmarked information should be assumed to be unclassified." And one more time, the question you love to duck: if he was "NOT UNCERTAIN," why did he require Miller to hide his identity? "The set of NOT CERTAIN is EXACTLY EQUAL TO the set of UNCERTAIN." I'm glad you're finally catching on.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
may: "complains about having to scroll a quarter page to get clarification of a quote someone else provided him" I guess you're determined to keep digging. What you provided (here) wasn't "a quote." It was a fraudulent paraphrase (as I pointed out here). I guess you're determined to remind us that you have no idea that there's actually a difference between those two things.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "By definition the information B received is not 'classified'." What you are pointing to is IIPA. The text in IIPA is not a general-purpose definition of classified information. It is a definition of classified information that is subject to IIPA. It's possible you didn't know this: IIPA doesn't cover all kinds of classified information. It only covers some kinds. SF-312, on the other hand, covers all kinds of classified information, including classified information that's unmarked. I cited the exact language above. If Libby received unmarked information, he's in a position to argue that he didn't violate IIPA. However, that doesn't put him in a position to argue that he didn't violate SF-312. cathyf: "A tells B classified information without classified designation B properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to C" There's your problem, right there. SF-312 tells us that classified information is still classified information, even "without classified designation." And there is nothing 'proper' about 'assuming' that information is unclassified simply because it arrives (allegedly) "without classified designation." I realize you're all terribly excited about this loophole in IIPA, but unfortunately SF-312 lacks this loophole. cecil: "Fitz was authorized to conduct 'a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information.' He can't hang that on a briefing booklet . . . and neither can you." I realize you want very, very much to construct a straw man and put words in my mouth. That will be effective only to the extent that your audience consists of fools who can't do their own thinking. I never said that Fitz could hang his "criminal investigation" on "a briefing booklet." I never said that there was any connection between Fitz's criminal investigation and SF-312. I said that Libby violated an agreement. Why do you condone this? By the way, it's worth taking a moment to savor this latest misrepresentation on your part (aside from putting words in my mouth). Yes, there is a "briefing booklet" associated with SF-312, but SF-312 is not "a briefing booklet." It's a formal, binding, legal agreement, signed and witnessed. Nice job trying to create the impression that it's just a "booklet" people read.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
cecil: "Like your 'proof' that the 'accord' was most likely the cover letter (which provides no info and makes about zero sense, eh?)" You're being completely incoherent. By "cover letter" are you trying to say "cover page?" There are several letters that could be considered cover letters. And there is one document that could be called a cover page. And that page provides essentially "no info," which is why I think you meant to say "cover page," not "cover letter." However, none of these are the agreement/accord itself, which is what CIA had (in verbatim-text form) in 2/02. And I never said anything remotely like this: "the 'accord' was most likely the cover letter." I also never even said anything remotely like this: 'the accord was most likely the cover page.' We realize that you can't get very far without inventing your own facts, and without putting all sorts of words in my mouth.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
cecil: "I mentioned Eisner in interest of completeness" This is the only remotely substantive remark buried in your evasive tantrum. You have a very strange idea of "completeness:" to cite a careless WP reporter (because it serves your argument to do so), while completely ignoring a pile of information in SSCI and R-S that contradicts him (and you). How ironic. This matter is worth a close look. First, because it's a classic illustration of you doing what you do. Second, because the matter of the "verbatim text" is important and interesting (as compared with, say, explaining to a silly person that "uncertain" and "not certain" are precisely, perfectly synonymous). Everyone (who is likely to be reading this) has heard of the Niger documents. What is probably not widely known is that there were lots of them. A list enumerating 17 separate documents is here. Here's something else that's not widely known: while almost all the documents are publicly available, the most important one is not. The most important document is the sales agreement itself. This is sometimes called the "accord." Niger was a French colony; France is the official language of Niger; most of the Niger documents are in French; "accord" is French for "agreement." While the public has not seen the agreement/accord, we've seen lots of other related and supporting documents, like cover pages and letters. For example, here we can see a cover page that contains almost nothing except the word "ACCORD." The Niger documents are important because they are the ultimate basis for the 16 words. Elsewhere I've shown proof that this is so, via R-S and other sources. Of course the other interesting thing is that they're obvious, amateur, inept forgeries. One of the great unsolved mysteries is why CIA spent over a year pretending they were real. The Bushist yellowcake narrative works very, very hard to pretend that prior to 10/02, we had no detailed information about the Niger documents (I could cite many examples of righty bloggers promoting this falsehood). Promoting this idea is a high priority, for two reasons. First, it deflects and minimizes the question of why CIA overlooked the forgeries for a long time. Second, it makes Wilson look like a liar for claiming that he knew, in 2/02, that the documents were forged. Trouble is, SSCI and R-S both clearly establish that although we didn't receive page-image copies of the documents until 10/02, we did indeed receive verbatim text of one or more documents in 2/02. In particular, SSCI and R-S tell us that we had verbatim text of the agreement/accord in 2/02. And R-S tells us that this verbatim text contained the errors which indicate the forgery. In other words, R-S tells us that CIA could have and should have known, in 2/02, that the documents were forged. For some strange reason, R-S buries this information in a footnote. I wonder why. Let's recall, again, that this document, the agreement/accord, is still not publicly available. As you helpfully admitted, "no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA [in 2/02]." This brings us to the current thread, where we get to consider your (cecil's) latest deception. Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that the documents were forged, and that the CIA should have noticed this in 2/02, and that Wilson (and others) did indeed notice this in 2/02 (although he is understandably coy about this, since it seems that he had only unauthorized access to the verbatim text, or to information about the verbatim text). These are important points, so you put together a phony argument to claim otherwise. In particular, you claimed that the verbatim text we had in 2/02 was not "enough to debunk the documents." Your argument is based on a long list of falsehoods and misrepresentations. A) You completely gloss over the fact that R-S told us that the verbatim text, held by us in 2/02, contained the errors which indicated the forgery. This is reason enough to understand that you're dead-wrong, and that the verbatim text we had in 2/02 was indeed "enough to debunk the documents." This is clear without going into any further analysis with regard to which document(s) we held in 2/02. B) You claim that we had verbatim text for only one document; this claim is possibly (or even probably) true, but unproven. C) You pretend you know which document we had. You flatly say "the document the CIA had a 'verbatim text' for," as if there's no question that you're pointing to the right document. The document you're pointing to is what's sometimes called the 'presidential letter.' It can be seen here (page 1, page 2). Trouble is, SSCI and R-S plainly indicate that we had verbatim text for the agreement/accord (earlier I provided detailed citations for this). In other words, you completely ignore what they tell us is the correct document, and instead point to a different document, simply because it serves your argument. D) Putting aside the above, let's assume the 'presidential letter' is the correct document (i.e., the document for which we had "verbatim text" in 2/02). You pretend or assume that this source has correctly identified all the textual errors in the document. Trouble is, they haven't. They don't bother commenting on these words: "500 TONNES D'URANIUM PUR." That means "pure uranium." Trouble is, yellowcake is definitely not "pure uranium." Yellowcake is uranium oxide, and can be called "pure uranium oxide," but lots of further steps are required before it can be called "pure uranium." E) You acknowledge that the 'presidential letter' has a textual error, but you gloss over it with a wave of your hand ("2 is at best unpersuasive"). Trouble is, this error was glaring and unmistakable. The letter cited a Niger constitution that had been repealed years earlier. This would be roughly the equivalent of the White House issuing a press release that indicated the Declaration of Independence had been signed in 1876. In other words, there are multiple independent reasons why your argument doesn't stand even the slightest scrutiny. When I challenged you to explain why you picked this particular document, you cited Eisner, here, completely glossing over the fact that he has made the mistake of overlooking what we learned from SSCI and R-S (that we had verbatim text of the agreement/accord, not merely a letter). But you cite him in a very tricky way. You mention a document he cited (which happens to be a letter; the Niger documents included several letters). But then you make a complete leap and claim the correct answer is some other letter (the 'presidential letter'). You point out, correctly, that SSCI indicates that the "verbatim text" makes reference to "500 tons;" you point out, correctly, that Eisner has pointed to a letter that does not make reference to "500 tons;" and you point out, correctly, that the 'president's letter' does, indeed, make reference to "500 tons." Someone who's not watching closely doesn't realize that you're performing a cheap card-trick: you choose to adopt Eisner's idea (false but convenient) that the correct document is a letter of some kind, and then you cherry-pick SSCI's statement about "500 tons," and then you put these together to force the card that best serves your argument: the 'president's letter.' Never mind that SSCI and R-S both told us to look for the agreement/accord itself, not some ancillary letter. By the way, it's clear that Eisner is very confused. It's not just that he pointed at a document that's incongruent with what is stated by SSCI and R-S. It's that he pointed at a document that's incongruent with what he said in his own book. This is explained in detail here. It's interesting to notice that probably no MSM reporter has studied this subject more than Eisner. He's written a book about it. Yet he's making careless errors. This is enough to indicate that MSM has done a very poor job of covering this subject matter (the verbatim text). In fact, they've mostly ignored it. Just like righty bloggers. I wonder why that is. You're clever. You use Eisner to point in the direction of looking at letters, but then you create deception and confusion by slightly distancing yourself from Eisner, by claiming that he's pointing at the wrong letter, and you know which one is the right one. You get to put some space between yourself and Eisner, but meanwhile you're using him to ignore what R-S and SSCI said: it wasn't a letter; it was the accord/agreement. The irony is that you and Eisner are both ignoring SSCI and R-S. But it seems pretty clear that he's making a mistake, and you're practicing deception. Given the number of people who can't find Iraq on a map, and can barely remember the name of the VP, it's no surprise that your stuff is effective. It's interesting to note that this particular technique you're using is not rare. Here's the idea behind what you did: find a lefty (or allegedly lefty) source that makes a mistake and offers a false fact. Notice that the fact can be used to help you build an argument. Present the fact as part of your argument. Pretend you don't know the fact is false (or, in your case, present the idea that it's only slightly false). This is clever, because you get to say 'hey, it must be true; even a lefty admits it.' And you get to say 'look at how fair and balanced I am; I quote lefties; I practice completeness.' An interesting example of Power Line doing this sort of thing is here. Notice the following words: According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That statement is false, and I can prove that Power Line knows it's false. Yet they're very happy to present those words, because the lie is laundered via WP. Just like you found a way to launder your lie through WP.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
A quick one for now about SF-312. More later about other things, like "verbatim text." I realize this is an old thread, but certain answers belong in this thread. cecil: "The statute says it has to be 'clearly marked or clearly represented." Yes, IIPA says what you're saying it says. Trouble is, SF-312 sets a broader standard: classified information is still classified information, even when it's unmarked. "Dance all around your insisted interpretation of 'uncertain,' and the SF-312 is still irrelevant to the criminal IIPA prosecution." Nice job with the straw man. I didn't claim that SF-312 was relevant "to the criminal IIPA prosecution." I said Libby violated SF-312. "it's ridiculous: by your standard, one would have to check every single fact ever uttered, because you couldn't be 'certain' it wasn't classified." It's not my standard. It's the standard explicitly called for by SF-312. And it doesn't mean "one would have to check every single fact ever uttered." Reasonable people rely on common sense. If White House official A receives a CIA memo that indicates the current year is 2007, A realizes that he is certain that this information is unclassified. He knows there is no chance whatsoever that this information is classified. There are many other facts that fall into this category, like what "CIA" stands for. However, if A receives a memo with certain information about the employment status of a CIA employee, A realizes that there is at least a chance that this information might be classified. Even if normal practice is supposedly to mark such information, A realizes (if he is competent and careful) that humans make mistakes, and that he should avoid making assumptions when it comes to information that is possibly classified. "The idea that he could possibly be liable while Armitage was not is ludicrous." Please indicate where I said that Armitage did not violate SF-312. "How do you 'violate' the SF-312? Are you confusing that with an actual, you know, law?" That's rich. It's good to know how you feel about agreements: they mean nothing to you. "Violate" is something one can do with regard to a law. It's also something one can do with regard to an agreement (like a contract, for example). "Absent intent, neither official broke any law." I didn't claim that a violation of SF-312 is a violation of law. A violation of SF-312 is a violation of an agreement. Let's recall some things about SF-312. First of all, it's an agreement. That's why it has this name: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement It's not just an agreement. It's a serious agreement. That's why it requires three signatures: the person making it, the person accepting it, and a person witnessing it. The seriousness of SF-312 is indicated in these statements: Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. … I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation … I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government. … I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. SF-312 indicates that classified information is not always marked as such: As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security SF-312 makes clear that the burden is on the discloser: I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it: or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b) above Hmm, let's see. When Libby divulged classified information to Miller, had he first "officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it?" I don't think so. When Libby divulged classified information to Miller, had he "been given prior written notice of authorization … that such disclosure is permitted?" I don't think so. When Libby divulged classified information to Miller, was he certain that the information he was divulging was unclassified? I don't think so. Did he "confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified?" I don't think so. I think it's sufficiently clear that Libby violated SF-312. "after B passes along A's info, it's A's fault, and he's the one who violated procedure, not B" SF-312 makes no exceptions for a situation where A behaved badly. B does not get a free pass to violate his SF-312 agreement just because A allegedly violated procedure. "The bottom line is that CIA is responsible for protecting the identity of covert agents" Anyone who signs SF-312 is responsible for safeguarding classified information that comes into their possession, without regard to how it gets there. The question of whether CIA did enough to mark the information is probably relevant to an IIPA prosecution, but it's not relevant to the question of whether or not Libby violated SF-312. Anyway, as I said, it's nice to know that agreements mean nothing to you, even when signed and witnessed. Bush repeatedly promised that he would restore honor and dignity to the White House. The GOP has repeatedly suggested that it's the party of integrity, morality and values. It's great to have this vivid demonstration of real GOP values: no behavior is off-limits, as long as you can manage to stay out of jail. Lying, breaking agreements, outing a covert agent during wartime: all OK, as long as you can manage to avoid a criminal conviction. Please consider these two questions: A) Did senior people in the White House handle classified information in an improper manner? B) Did senior people in the White House handle classified information in criminal manner? IIPA is relevant to B. SF-312 is relevant to A. It's no wonder that you just want to talk about B. It's a way of directing attention away from A. You're basically taking the following position (paraphrase): "everything's OK, because outside of a little thing called perjury, no criminal activity has been proven." That's not good enough for me. Why is it good enough for you? How did your standards get to be so low? The GOP is showing it's true stripes, as the party of hypocrisy. It claims to be the party of values, but it embraces lying and breaking agreements. It claims to be the party of national security, but it treats the improper handling of classified information as something to be condoned. "Why should we trust anything from you?" Because despite all your strenuous efforts, you've provided this many examples of materially incorrect information on my part (aside from minor errors that I promptly corrected): zero. Meanwhile, I've proven many examples of you posting misinformation. By the way, why did you accuse me of unfairly truncating the R-S footnote, when I had already provided both shortened and unshortened versions of that footnote? And this is aside from the fact that the words you're making a fuss about strengthen my argument.
Toggle Commented Jun 11, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
For the moment, I'm suspending my normal practice of FIFO. Instead I'm going to jump around a bit. But I still intend to answer everything, sooner or later, as is my normal practice. Please keep in mind that it's the weekend, and someone I know has a big soccer game today. Folks here have been willfully ignorant for a long time. A few more hours or days don't mean much. boris: "When reporting every detail the OVP 'needs to know' they don’t have to break the law doing it. Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation. Undesignated = unclassified." This is another classic moment when I honestly can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest. "the law" The law you're referring to is IIPA, right? I'm asking because I like to avoid making assumptions, as much as possible. "Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation." You're claiming that this is required by IIPA, right? I'll assume I'm reading you right. Yes, according to IIPA, "disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation." That's true. But that doesn't mean that the absence of "proper classified designation" is an indication that someone broke the law. It only means that IIPA does not apply, in that instance. Imagine that CIA person A conveys to White House official B a certain item of classified information. Let's assume that B has a security clearance. Let's assume that A fails to provide "proper classified designation," in the manner defined by IIPA. Now let's evaluate A's behavior. It's possible A did something really dumb. It's possible that A committed a firing offense. It's possible that A violated some CIA policy that is not known to the public. But here's what A did not do: break the law. A did not violate IIPA. He also, incidentally, did not violate SF-312. Please consider the following two statements: C) IIPA requires that classified information always carry "proper classified designation." Anyone who conveys classified information (even to a person who is authorized to receive it) and omits the "proper classified designation" has broken the law and is subject to prosecution. D) IIPA makes is a crime to leak (that is, convey to a person not authorized to receive classified information) a certain category of classified information, i.e., information regarding the identity of a certain category of IC employees. However, a person cannot be prosecuted under IIPA if the information had been conveyed to them without "proper classified designation." C and D are quite different. You're pretending that C is true. Trouble is, it's not. D is true. "there was no need to know the CIA wife detail" OVP, with great intensity, asked for a full account of Wilson's trip. That account includes a certain meeting, where Plame introduced Wilson and then left the room. A full account of Wilson's trip logically includes mentioning this meeting, and a full account of the meeting logically includes mentioning this detail: Plame arranged the meeting, introduced Wilson, and left the room. It would have been fraudulent, silly, unnecessary and insubordinate to airbrush these details out of the picture. "EITHER admit CIA isn't violating law" I admit it: "CIA isn't violating law." Thank you for that entertaining Freudian slip. "If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???" Nice job pretending I haven't already answered that, in detail, here. But since you're obviously click-impaired, and scroll-impaired, I'll humor you and say it again. I don't know anyone who said she "had nothing to do with the mission" (that false claim involves misquoting Wilson, a sub-topic I've addressed elsewhere). She apparently did have something to do with the mission: something very minor. As far as "bringing it up," Cheney was obsessed with Wilson's op-ed, and many people were trying to please him by reporting every possible detail they could think of about Wilson's mission. A few of these details involved Plame. Therefore she was mentioned. In particular, Cheney's handwritten note, on a clipping of Wilson's op-ed, said this: "did his wife send him on a junket." And Cheney discussed this idea with Libby. So lots of people understood that top management would be very happy to hear any clues that could be used to support the narrative that Cheney was obviously trying to construct. The phony narrative that mental slaves like you swallowed whole, and are still trying to promote, even though almost every day there are new revelations that add more proof to what was known long ago: the narrative is false. In other words, Cheney's handwritten note indicates that he was interested not just in Wilson, and in Wilson's trip, but that he was especially interested in any detail involving Plame, especially if those details could be inflated into a platform for the phony narrative later secretly issued by OVP: she sent him. You're blaming CIA for giving Cheney precisely what he asked for. That's like saying you're upset about the damage I did to your fist when I struck it with my nose. "your long overdue answer" My answer is not overdue. It was already delivered, and ignored. You (both individually and collectively), on the other hand, continue to duck all sorts of questions that are simple, relevant and fair. Here's one: why did Libby insist that Miller hide his identity? "long" Cleaning up a big pile of crap requires a large shovel. Especially when the crappers are deeply obtuse.
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
cecil: "I see above a rather stupid argument about Eisner, who, as I've already noted, seems to've gotten the wrong document" It was your idea to drag in Eisner, not mine. We're looking forward to you resolving many mysteries. One of them is why you decided it was important to mention him. I think the answer to that question is obvious, and not particularly helpful to your credibility, but I'll let you provide it yourself. I thnk you should make up your mind: either Eisner is credible or he isn't. Your attitude about this is somewhat schizoprenic. And it's deeply ironic that you're saying Eisner "seems to've gotten the wrong document," since that's exactly what you did. Except in your case, it's sufficiently clear that you did so in a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
cecil: "just pretends it isn't proven" The important thing is not whether or not it's proven. The important thing is that it doesn't matter. Here's what matters: the substance of what we write here. Here's what doesn't matter: anything else. That includes things like our age, gender, political affiliation, birth sign, blood type, zip code, eye color, real name, or prior jobs where we learned lots of sexy milspeak. I realize you're very interested in focusing attention on things that don't matter, because you need to avoid dealing with things that do matter. Like why you lied about the forgeries. (By the way, "isn't proven" isn't something I 'pretend;' "isn't proven" happens to be a fact.) "takes credit for verse that mentions only Juke's handle" I didn't take credit for it. You deserve all the credit, such as it is. I just pointed out that I inspired it. That's clear, because you wrote it in response to my comments here. What handles you choose to include or not include is your problem, not mine. If in your next doggerel I inspire you to choose to mention the tooth fairy, I guess that will be your proof that I'm the tooth fairy. Now let's discuss something infinitely more relevant and interesting. The situation with the forged documents is exceptionally confusing. It's a real-life spy story, with many overlapping layers of deception and counter-deception. It's worth taking a minute to understand some of the basic reasons why it's so confusing. First of all, it's not just one page, or one document. It's a batch of documents, composed of individual documents. These individual documents have various informal names, such as "the letter," "the accord," "the agreement," "the annex," "the presidential letter," "the embassy letter," "the cover letter" and so on. Different sources don't necessarily use those names in a consistent way. Aside from there being separate documents, there are also separate versions of the documents, that have evolved via various channels. In particular, there are conventional page-image copies, and there's also discussion about what's called "verbatim text," which means that just the textual content is conveyed (and it may or may not have been conveyed faithfully). This adds to the confusion. Finally, there are a variety of sources of information about the documents. There are official sources, such as SSCI 2004 and Robb-Silberman, and there are various unofficial sources. You alluded to two of the unofficial sources: Eisner of WP, and blogger eriposte of theleftcoaster.com (I think he's by far the best source, light-years ahead of almost anyone else). It's very interesting to notice that righty bloggers pay very little detailed attention to the forged documents, especially with regard to the matter of the verbatim text, which is both complicated and important. I think that's not an accident. Anyway, these three dimensions (multiple documents, multiple versions, multiple commentators) understandably add up to a lot of confusion. Also, it's a spy story, and some of the players are intentionally trying to create confusion. Like you, as I will show. Anyway, I think it's helpful to be aware of these basic factors which make the story fundamentally confusing. However, despite the potential for confusion, it's still possible to get a grip on certain facts. Those facts strongly suggest that CIA was in a position to easily detect the forgery in 2/02. This is despite your attempts to claim otherwise. One more introductory note. It's very helpful that certain forged Niger documents are available here. However, there's reason to suspect that important pieces are missing. In particular, there's reason to suspect that we're not seeing what CIA saw in 2/02, that is, one or more particular documents that formed the basis for "verbatim text" that we held at that time. As you correctly said: "no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA." Now let's take a close look at what you said recently. What you've done is classic cherry-picking: you're jumping around from source-to-source, putting together a patchwork of claims in a manner that's not even remotely coherent or honest. "As the addenda to the SSCI noted: 'Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.' " That word ("addenda") is your coy way of sort-of-almost-but-not-really telling us that what you're citing is not bipartisan; rather, it's from an "Additional Views" section authored by Bond, Roberts and Hatch. In other words, it was considered sufficiently partisan that the six other R senators on the committee refused to put their name on it. If they didn't trust it, why should I? This is a very, very common righty technique of deception: quoting from the R-only sections of SSCI 2004, and pretending (to one degree or another) that they represent a bipartisan finding. A classic example of Rick Ballard doing this is here. He claims he is quoting "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." Not quite. He's quoting the view of three R senators on that committee (the same section you cited), views which six other R senators declined to endorse (let alone the eight D senators). In other words, he's quoting 18% of the group and pretending it's the view of the full group. Not honest. You just did essentially the same thing, except your word ("addenda") is a tiny warning to the reader that they should pay attention. And you did provide the URL, so an attentive reader could go figure things out. But most readers aren't attentive. Now let's look at the text you quoted: the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports Let me paraphrase this: 'IAEA examined documents containing errors, but those errors were not present in the CIA reports.' One problem I have: "the CIA reports" is troublingly vague. What "CIA reports?" There are a bunch of different possible answers to that question. They're encouraging us to assume a particular answer, but we've learned that with this gang assumptions are a bad idea. Also notice how carefully crafted those words are. They leave open all sorts of interesting possibilities, like this one: the CIA reports included lots of incorrect names/dates; they were just a different batch of incorrect names/dates than the ones in the particular set of documents that ended up in the hands of IAEA. In other words, Roberts seems to be working hard to avoid plainly saying this: the CIA reports contained no hints of forgery. Period. Anyway, the bigger problem is that R-S seem to contradict Roberts: The errors in the original documents, which indicated they were forgeries, also occur in the February 2002 report that provided a "verbatim" text of the agreement, indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents. That's obviously the footnote we've both already cited. Let me try to paraphrase it: 'errors which indicated the original documents are forgeries also appear in the verbatim text that is part of the CIA reports.' This seems directly at odds with what Roberts said. R-S was bipartisan, and it was later, so I'll take R-S. More on this footnote later. "the CIA only had 'verbatim text' of one document" I think this is possible, maybe even probable, but far from proven. You don't provide a source for this assertion. How do you know? "it was this one. That's the one listed as 'document 1: The Presidents letter' " This gets to the heart of your alibi for your nasty lie. You're telling us that we had verbatim text for only one document (although you cite no proof for this claim), and then you go a step further and tell us you know which document is the one we had (among several different possibilities). Trouble is, your claim that you picked the right document is very, very weak. I won't take the space to list all the reasons, but here are a few. You're claiming we had verbatim text for one document, the so-called president's letter, consisting of two pages sent (allegedly) from the president of Niger to Saddam. Here's an important thing to understand: the letter is not an agreement. It makes reference to an agreement, a document that is clearly separate: IT'S MY HONOR TO REFER TO THE AGREEMENT # 3*1-NI 2000, REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF URANIUM, SIGNED IN NIAMEY ON THE 6TH OF JULY 2000 BETWEEN THE GOVERMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NIGER AND THE GOVERMENT OF IRAQ BY THEIR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES OFFICIAL DELEGATES. Now let's take a moment to consider something SSCI says about verbatim text (p. 36-37): Reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Niger and Iraq first came to the attention of the US. Intelligence Community (IC) on October 15,2001. The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) issued an intelligence report [redacted] from a foreign government service indicating that Niger planned to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq [redacted]. The intelligence report said the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999, and was approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. According to the cable, Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja gave his stamp of approval for the agreement and communicated his decision to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The report also indicated that in October 2000 Nigerien Minister of Foreign Affairs Nassirou Sabo informed one of his ambassadors in Europe that Niger had concluded an accord to provide several tons of uranium to Iraq. … The second report provided more details about the previously reported Iraq-Niger uranium agreement and provided what was said to be “verbatim text” of the accord. Notice that key word: "accord." Not "letter." Now, I agree this could be just a sloppy error. But I find ot hard to believe that SSCI could really be that sloppy, for no reason. The president's letter makes explicit reference to a separate document, an "accord," in the original French. The letter and the accord are distinctly separate documents. Even if one was holding the letter alone, the very first sentence makes clear that the "accord" is a separate document. R-S tells us the exact same thing, that the verbatim text was the agreement/accord: during meetings on July 5-6, 2000, Niger and Iraq had signed an agreement for the sale of 500 tons of uranium. This report stated that it was providing the "verbatim text" of the agreement Not verbatim text of a letter that made reference to an agreement. Verbatim text of the agreement. Similar language appears in the footnote we've been discussing: the February 2002 report … provided a "verbatim" text of the agreement Now here's another clue from SSCI. We're being given a lame explanation for why CIA didn't bother to get their hands on the original documents (p. 59): The CIA told the Committee its analysts did not seek to obtain copies of the documents because they believed that the foreign government service reporting was verbatim text Paraphrase: 'we saw no need to seek the originals, because we had verbatim text, and that told us everything we needed to know.' Now this is just absurd, if the "verbatim text" consisted exclusively of what you claim: only the relatively secondary two-page presidential letter, and none of the other documents that we eventually received. "the only pertinent parts of a source" This is where you try to develop your alibi. You're claiming you weren't cherry-picking; you were just pointing to "the only pertinent parts." Let's review. This started with you trying to argue that CIA in 2/02 was not really in a position to notice the forgery. You said this: it's useful to note the telltale signs of forgery on the document the CIA had a "verbatim text" for Hmm. Later you said this: no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA Exactly. And it's not just that we're not sure we have "the actual text received by CIA." We're not even sure we know which document or documents were "received by CIA." Trouble is, this didn't stop you from pretending you had knowledge you didn't have. You pretended to be sure that the proper document was the president's letter, without even hinting at all the assumptions you were making. You simply said you knew, as if it was a proven fact, "the document the CIA had a 'verbatim text' for." Never mind that both SSCI and R-S offer many clues pointing in a distinctly different direction. This is an example of you doing what you do very, very often: pretending that you know more than you actually know. This is very easy for you to do, since you know more than most of the people you're addressing. But that's not saying much, around here. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. "getting to your own truncated quote from Silberman-Robb … feel no compunction over truncating single sentences to change the meaning and make a bogus point" You're suggesting that I truncated something in a dishonest way. That's a weird claim. I've cited that footnote twice. In one place, here, I cited the footnote quite fully, just as fully as you did, and definitely did not truncate the passage you suggest I'm afraid of ("indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents"). The fact that I cited the footnote fully, prior to the time that you accused me of truncating it, is sufficient to prove that I wasn't trying to hide those words. So I'm ready to accept your apology for accusing me of doing something that I plainly was not doing. I did post an earlier comment, here, where I did indeed leave out the words you claim are so important. So what? Here's the full footnote again. Please note, again, that I cited it in this complete form (here) before you cited it in essentially the same complete form (here): The errors in the original documents, which indicated they were forgeries, also occur in the February 2002 report that provided a “verbatim” text of the agreement, indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents. "Note the point: not that they 'reveal the errors' . . . but that it's from the same source." What nonsense. They are making two points, closely related to each other, and both points are helpful to my overall argument, which is why I was perfectly happy to cite the full footnote, on one occasion, with no need for any prompting from you or anyone else. On the prior occasion, I was focusing on just one particular point, strictly for the sake of simplicity (which is hard to come by when the subject is the forged documents). The footnote tells us two things, both of which are very damaging to Bush. How odd that it's buried in a footnote. These are the two things: A) The original documents contained errors. These errors "indicated they were forgeries." These errors also appear "in the February 2002 report that provided a 'verbatim' text of the agreement." In other words, the " 'verbatim' text of the agreement" contained "in the February 2002 report" was faithful to "the original documents." In other words, if a viewer of the original documents can detect errors that "indicate[d] they were forgeries," then obviously a viewer of the " 'verbatim' text of the agreement" contained "in the February 2002 report" can accomplish the exact same result. B) Since the "'verbatim' text of the agreement" contained "in the February 2002 report" was faithful to "the original documents," it's safe to conclude that the original reporting was based on the forged documents. You're noticing that on one occasion I chose to overlook B and focus on A. I did that for the sake of simplicity. You claim I had a sinister motive. That's beyond absurd. First of all, in a later comment, with no prompting from you or anyone else, I freely offered B (i.e., I offered the full footnote). Secondly, B only helps my overall argument. I have nothing to fear in B. You're suggesting that B is true, but not A. That's nonsense. A and B are linked intimately, and reinforce each other. B cannot be true without A also being true, and vice versa. It's true that the passage is written in such a way as to focus more attention on B, but so what? They buried it in a footnote, so it's no surprise that they would also be slightly coy with regard to emphasis. The idea of B jumps right off the page, while A requires a very tiny investment in reasoning. Finally, A is the key point I was making, and it obviates the need to figure out exactly which document(s) we held on 2/02. R-S isn't telling us precisely what we held, but they're telling us that what we held "indicated they were forgeries." Anyway, it's incredibly ironic that you choose to cite Eisner. Unless you want to admit that you're cherry-picking, I guess we have to assume you concur with this statement of his: In February 2002, the CIA received the verbatim text of one of the documents, filled with errors easily identifiable through a simple Internet search One more thing. I think it's clear that this complex subplot regarding "verbatim text" is closely tied to other important topics, like Plame. It's interesting to notice how many times ace Plameologist Maguire has ever mentioned the phrase "verbatim text:" zero, as far as I can tell. A bit odd, don't you think?
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "Let the degrees of certainty set = { certain, believed, likely, uncertain }" You're affecting rigor, but it's bogus, because you're using distorted definitions. You're pretending that 'certain' can only mean 'perfectly certain.' Likewise, you're pretending that 'uncertain' can only mean 'totally uncertain.' This way you get to place other words in the middle, and claim they're separate from 'certain' and 'uncertain.' Trouble is, they're not. They're only separate from 'perfectly certain' and 'totally uncertain.' In other words, 'believed' is not separate from 'certain.' It's just a flavor, or degree, of 'certain,' just like 'perfectly certain' is a flavor of 'certain.' Certainty is a matter of degree, so we have other words, like 'believed' or 'likely,' that we use as qualifiers to express just how certain or uncertain we are. You're coming up with your own distorted definitions because you're determined to force a particular result. Here's a better idea: accept the plain meaning of the words and accept wherever they lead you. In a way, what you're doing is this: you're pretending that SF-312 said 'totally uncertain.' Trouble is, it only said 'uncertain.' "Your claim that UN always = NOT is disproven" There are exceptions to almost everything. Yes, I imagine it's possible to find exceptions to the rule that un=not (although I think the examples you've shown, i.e., 'unlucky' and 'uninstall,' are quite forced and questionable). However, you haven't proven that "uncertain" is one of those exceptions. You wish that to be so, and you've claimed that to be so, but you haven't proven it to be so. One way to prove it would be to bring an authority more convincing than boris, but you haven't done so. In the absence of a reason to treat it as an exception, it's reasonable to understand that it's not an exception. Anyway, 'uncertain' is not a complicated word. Look it up. Here are some typical definitions: not completely confident or sure not known beyond doubt not completely certain not having sure knowledge not sure not established beyond doubt not established or confirmed These definitions all plainly indicate that 'uncertain' and 'not certain' mean the same thing. So no matter what definition you choose, the outcome is the same: Libby is in trouble with regard to SF-312, because the circumstances seem to indicate that he was not in a position to be 'completely confident' that Plame's employment status was unclassified. (Substitute any of the other definitions and the analysis comes out the same way.) And it's not just that he was not in a position to be sure. It's that his behavior (i.e. his hiding) shows that he knew he wasn't sure. And the reality might easily be worse: that he was sure her status was classified. Here's an idea: take a small fraction of the energy you're putting into puerile insults, and make an attempt to answer this simple question that's being universally ducked: if he had nothing to hide, why was he hiding? This question reliably elicits the deafening sound of crickets. Of course, the silence itself is an answer. It tends to confirm the obvious: Libby was hiding because he had something to hide.
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "hymn" It's been a long time since I inspired poetry, so I have to say I'm kind of touched. I also have to say that last time around the quality was much better, but don't take it personally. "here" If you're interested in promoting that material, I can't think of any reason to discourage you. However, you might as well pick from a much longer list, with an obvious search like this: http://www.google.com/search?q=jukeboxgrad. Who knows; somewhere in there you might even find inspiration for more poetry. Anyway, it's clear that you've got lots of time on your hands. Here's an idea: use some of it to explain why you told a nasty lie.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
may: "I paraphrased and then provided the actual article" You have a ways to go before your credibility is as bad some of the other characters here, but you're picking up speed in your race to the bottom. Let's review. You posted a fraudulent paraphrase of Kristof (here). A few minutes later, you posted a long passage of his (here). A careful reader could have read that passage and figured out that your prior paraphrase was fraudulent. However, you said nothing about this. In other words, you said nothing like 'oops, I see now that what he actually said isn't what I claimed he said.' At this point, a generous person could have assumed that you simply had made a careless mistake. However, you quickly made clear that such generosity would be unwarranted. I challenged your fraudulent paraphrase (here). You responded (here) by pretending that your paraphrase wasn't fraudulent. So I challenged you again (here). You responded with this evasive statement: "I posted his article to provide his exact wording." Now you have responded again with this evasive statement: "I paraphrased and then provided the actual article." "Any you keep harping on my responsibility." Indeed, because you're irresponsible. You still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that your paraphrase was wrong. The fact that you later posted correct material doesn't mean you're entitled to pretend that your earlier incorrect material wasn't incorrect. I went to the trouble of documenting this because it's a very typical example of what goes on here constantly: not just rampant misinformation, but folks having an aggressively, shamelessly irresponsible attitude about their entitlement to spread rampant misinformation. I'm not suggesting that this should stop: on the contrary. Being able to see clearly how the GOP behaves at the bottom is very instructive when it comes to understanding the way the GOP behaves at the top.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "The FACT that certain/uncertain are not mutually exclusive has been established beyond dispute." You're mixing up two separate ideas. I can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest. Both, maybe. They're not "mutually exclusive." It's reasonable to talk about degrees of certainty (and that's what you're getting at with your comment about "mutually exclusive"). What's not reasonable is to claim that "uncertain" and "not certain" have different meanings. They don't. Trouble is, you claimed they do: 'uncertain' is not a synonym for 'not certain' That's nothing but funny. The prefix "un-," by definition, means "not." 'Uncertain' (the word in SF-312), has a very simple meaning: 'not completely sure.' If Libby was not completely sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified, that means Libby violated SF-312. It's that simple. (Likewise for Armitage, Rove, and Fleischer.) I can't prove that Libby wasn't completely sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified. Likewise, you can't prove that he was completely sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified. We're both speculating about this. However, the facts tend to point in my direction. If he was completely sure, that would probably indicate the existence of an affirmative statement that gave him reason to be sure. For example, imagine that CIA plainly said to him "she's not classified." Trouble is, if Libby had ever heard such a statement, he would have been screaming about it long ago. This silence on his part tends to create the impression that there was never any such statement. In other words, I think the burden is on you to show that he had some reason to be sure her employment status was unclassified. It's not good enough to say (as you indeed seem to be saying) that he decided to simply assume that her employment status was unclassified, because he was relying on the idea that ostensibly CIA failed to affirmatively inform him, one way or another. That's good enough, potentially, to get him out from under IIPA, but it's not good enough to get him out from under SF-312. Here's another very strong circumstantial indication that he was not sure her employment status was unclassified. He asked Miller to hide his identity. He had no reason to do so, except if he wanted to avoid being held accountable for what he was telling her. And he would have no reason to want to avoid being held accountable for what he was telling her if he was sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified. Earlier, lurker made a big deal about Miller's words which supposedly explain why Libby was hiding. Lurker quoted Miller saying this: Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson Lurker claimed that this answered the question, but in fact it answers nothing. The question remains, and the question is why. Why would Libby "not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson," if the attack was legitimate, and necessary, and earned, and based on truth and fact, and done for proper reasons, and done without compromising classified information? Answer: there would be no reason. The reason "Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson" is this: Libby knew that everything about the attack was improper. They had no basis to attack Wilson in a legitimate manner, because Wilson was right: the Niger allegation was false, and based on phony documents. So they did everything they could to secretly smear him, using whatever raw materials they could get their hands on. This included lies, as well as classified information. These materials were used to build a narrative about how Plame gives good junket. This narrative was both irrelevant and false, but it successfully distracted and confused lots of people. Someone upthread (I forget who) tried to brush aside this question (the question of why Libby hid) by pointing out that lots of people do what Libby did (insist on speaking off-the-record). That's true. But there's always a reason, and the reason can be either legitimate or not. In this instance, there's no conceivable reason that is both plausible and legitimate. Anyway, you're promoting the following idea: when in doubt, the proper policy is to err in the direction of having a big mouth. It's highly entertaining to find the Party of National Security promoting this novel idea. It's an idea that's contrary to SF-312, and also contrary to common sense. What's even more contrary to common sense, if that's possible, is to claim that "un-" means something other than "not."
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: "the language has a fair number of options between certainty and uncertainty" Naturally. But understanding the plain language of SF-312 doesn't require getting into a discussion about such things as nihilism and determinism. Unless you're boris, and you've said something deeply absurd, and you're too much of a moral midget to admit it. The fact remains that "not certain" and "uncertain" are plainly synonyms. The prefix "un" connotes negation, just like the word "not." Good luck convincing anyone that these two ways of connoting negation are not interchangeable, or that one implies a different degree of negation than the other. That's essentially what you're claiming, and it's utter nonsense. Here's an idea: try looking up "un" (as a prefix) in a dictionary. The typical definition is this: "not." Here's an example: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law … Main Entry: un- Function: prefix 1 : not 2 : contrary to Here's another example: un- … used to add the meaning "not," "lacking," or "the opposite of" to adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and nouns unrealistic unhappily unfasten unfairness (from Cambridge Dictionary of American English) Another example here. And so on. Anyway, now that we know you live on a planet where "uncertain" means something other than "not certain," it's interesting to note some other features of your planet: "unable" means something other than "not able" "unacceptable" means something other than "not acceptable" "unafraid" means something other than "not afraid" "unarmed" means something other than "not armed" (obviously there are many, many other examples) And of course, "uncertain" means something other than "not certain." So we deeply appreciate your inadvertent gift of humor, where you said precisely that: 'uncertain' is not a synonym for 'not certain' You can't make this stuff up. "smarmy pontifications about word usage" This smarmy pontification of mine is about something bigger than "word usage." It's about being able to notice when someone is so committed to hiding the truth that they twist the language beyond recognition. As someone once said, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. In other words, this is a serious matter.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
boris: " 'uncertain' is not a synonym for 'not certain' " How Clintonesque of you. This is highly entertaining. Please consider the following text (let's call it A): I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it. Now please consider this (let's call it B): I understand that if I am not certain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it. You're claiming that A and B are materially different, and they make the difference between proper behavior on the part of Libby et al, as compared with improper behavior on the part of Libby et al. Really? Please think carefully about your answer, while I go get some more popcorn. The total and utter collapse of your 'reasoning' is simply a microcosm of what's happening to the GOP overall.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute