"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...
Look, you stupid moron, no matter how often you wish to repeat your
propaganda it does not make it fact. You continue to run around in
circles
begging the question. Your knowledge of history is less than high school
level and your ability to deduce meaning from facts is almost nil. Do you
realize how embarrassing small you look?

A single CIA agent "opinion" carries absolutely ZERO significance on U.S.
policy and the intelligence service. You peck at intelligence errors when
you have absolutely ZERO knowledge of intelligence. You have ZERO
understanding of intelligence. You have ZERO knowledge of what to do with
intelligence if it fell squarely in your lap!

"David" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:31:56 -0500, "SeeingEyeDog" wrote:


Motive: The Leftists Are Absolutely Terrified of Rove

This flaming Liberal is a Michigan District Attorney who used to be a
CIA UC. He also prosecuted Dr. Kevorkian:

Testimony of James Marcinkowski
July 22, 2005

What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or
who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we
will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very
dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably
damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby
significantly diminished our capability to protect the American
people.

Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but
damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a
clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another
partisan "dust-up" between political parties. This unprecedented act
will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the
world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning
act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by
government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have
played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor
games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the
American people. No government official has that right.

For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand
some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al
Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be
infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in
any city, has undercover officers--spies, that use "cover."

To operate under "cover" means you use some ruse to cloak both your
identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out
any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A
police officer performing "street buys" uses a "light" cover, meaning
he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate
only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk
job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made
to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or
drinking with fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the question.
In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides
personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is
also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent
persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas
acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials.

While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also
provides security for that officer's informants or agents. In most
human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used
by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is
mutually dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for
the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working
for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is
exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA
officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is
exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases,
the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal
safety but that of the agents or assets as well.

The exposure of Valerie Plame's cover by the White House is the same
as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of
its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the
officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension.
An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset
working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance
of losing more than just their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA,
will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is
their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If
you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person
will not work for you and the source of important information will be
lost.

So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or
potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local
police chief identified the names of the department's undercover
officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come
to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in
police headquarters, would be asked to retire.

And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is
not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of
Valerie Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps
irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they
try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary
importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and
maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even
guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of
secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the
credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable....

And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S.
government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not
convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great
damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single
day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept
responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing
greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect
human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government
officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists
who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community.
Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas
human intelligence assets or potential assets.

I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials
for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant
confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in
some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset
that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because
"promises of protection" will no longer carry the level of trust they
once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to
deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics
in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the
information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he
should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting
responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions
are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to
protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed
related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time
patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding
Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher," or belittling the varying
degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play
partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to
this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of cover or the
use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that
foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of
non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those
actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care.
Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss
of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The
loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the
United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your
American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve,
think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of
the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is
creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in
particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue
from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of
the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national
security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have
immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially
involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security
clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave.
Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country.
That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that
we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the
United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves
with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and
partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not
lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the
people of the United States.






Really? I have more faith and respect for David then a conservative
shmuck-a-doodle dip **** BrillCream user like yourself. Now go do something
to appease your ego and take care of that low self esteem issue...

Lucky