Dear God grant me patience. This virtue is essential if you try to employ logic and reason with the right wing crowd who insist that Valerie Plame Wilson was not undercover and was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). But here goes.
I received the following message today from one Tom Maguire, who is a self-proclaimed “Plameologist”. I never cease to be amazed at the chutzpah of some folks who lack experience and knowledge, but insist they have the grasp of secrets that folks who have actually worked on the issues do not. Maguire is at the head of the class in this regard. This clown has never worked at the CIA in any capacity, he has never held a security clearance, he’s never been a prosecuting attorney, but he insists he is qualified to judge whether Valerie was undercover. His methodology? In his ignorance he identifies supposed “errors” and then proclaims his “secret” truth. He repeats the same tired phrases over and over, apparently in the belief that the quantity of repetition translates his foolishness into pure gold at some point.
Here’s Maguires latest crazed ranting (highlighted in red) with my comments in black:
LC:
I expect the arguments are way too subtle for you, but Fitzgerald has stepped in it. I’ll recap it, secure in the knowledge that you’ll never follow a quick or long explanation anyway.
1. Per Onsleee’s (sic) comments in the Valerie Plame Relief Act introduced in Jan 2007, the CIA HR Dept tracks Ms. Plame’s “service abroad” for purposes of calculating her pension – in fact, she had a bit more than 6 years service abroad in her 20+ years of service.
As is typical of Maguire he is prone to error and has trouble getting even simple facts correct. For example, he refers to “Onsleee”. The Congressman in question is Jay INSLEE, who introduced the Valerie Plame Relief Act.
2. Oddly, there is “no mention”of this in the recent unclassified summary presented in Fitzgerald’s filing. Possible explanations:
a) the CIA personnel people went through her classified personnel file and never noticed that it tracked her service abroad, because they are oblivious to pension benefits and unaware of their own rules (Possible – you were CIA once, right?)
b) The CIA mentioned to DoJ / Fitzgerald that Ms. Plame has credit for service abroad in 2002 (or after June 1998, really, since the IIPA has the 5 year rule) but Fitzgerald never mentioned it in his summary even though it would have strenghtend his presentation. Uh huh.
c) Ms. Plame never got credit for service abroad after she came home in 1997, so the CIA and / or Fitzgerald fought like fury to keep her records out of court and concealed that fact in her summary.
My initial urge is to wonder if Maguire is retarded. But that would be an insult to the mentally disabled. Just because there is “no mention” in the unclassified summary, Maguire leaps to the conclusion that Patrick Fitzgerald is just making shit up. Let’s start with the term, “summary”. A summary is not a complete record. A summary highlights critical points. Here is another so-called “possibility” that apparently eluded the dull mind of the twit Maguire–the CIA did not mention Val’s time overseas prior to January 2002 because it still insists that Valerie’s cover remains intact and cannot be lifted. Since the CIA was giving Fitzgerald an unclassified summary it could not include classified information. If I’m going too fast here, just speak up.
Tom, you moron! You wouldn’t recognize water in a swimming pool if you were chained to the bottom (which, come to think of it is a nifty idea).
So what did the CIA summary actually state?
- Valerie worked in the Directorate of Operations in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) and was Chief of the component handling weapons proliferation issues on Iraq.
- Valerie traveled overseas while working at CPD at least 7 times and visited at least 10 countries. She always, REPEAT ALWAYS, traveled undercover. (Note: This means that she had no acknowledged relationship with the
U.S. Government. Sometimes she used her real name and real affiliation
with Brewster Jennings. Other times, she used an alias. That means
she traveled under a different name.) - The CIA was taking “affirmative measures” to protect Valerie’s identity when her name and affiliation were published on 14 July 2003 by Robert Novak. (Note: “Affirmative measures” means the CIA was trying to protect her identity. They did not consider her “just a desk jockey”.)
The CIA keeps track of the time people serve overseas. Why? Because a CIA officer can retire with full pension at age 50 if they have spent at least five years overseas and have worked at CIA for at least 20 years. Valerie won’t turn 50 for a few years. But her ability to work at CIA was destroyed once her identity was leaked. As an Operations Officer she would have associated with other “undercover” personnel. Her presence could compromise others.
Tommy-boy Maguire also has a tough time with simple, basic English. Was Valerie covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? Yes. No doubt. Here’s what Patrick Fitzgerald wrote on p. five of the sentencing calculation memo:
At the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified as a “covert
agent” within the meaning of the IIPA. See, e.g.l, the “Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson’s CIA Employment and Cover History” (a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A), which
makes plain, among other things, that “Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking
affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United
States. (Note: Fitzgerald also says he reviewed the classified file as well.)
So far we have the CIA saying in a document submitted to the Federal Court that Valerie was undercover and worked in a covert job. Current CIA Director, Michael Hayden, approved a memo for Congressman Waxman in April that stipulated the same points. Patrick Fitzgerald, in a separate court filing, states as fact (not opinion, but fact) that Valerie was undercover and was covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And then you have the public testimony of four former CIA officers–Jim Marcinkowski, Brent Cavan, Mike Grimaldi, and me–who entered the CIA with Val and spent a year with her in training. Multiple, sworn documents and eyewitnesses.
And what “proof” does Mr. Tom Maguire offer for his delusions? Nothing other than heartfelt opinions and uninformed, grotesquely ignorant speculation.
Tom concludes his latest missive to me with the following:
Tough choices. I lean to (c), but if you want to go with (a) insist the CIA is stupid, you are certainly positioned to make the case.
Let folks who understand the issues grapple with this, Larry.
Congratulations Tom, you finally got something partially right. Yes, let people who understand the CIA, the law, and basic common sense grapple with these issues. You are so far over your head on these issues that you are a black hole of stupidity. The CIA, Tom, is not stupid. You are. And you show no inclination whatsoever to admit you do not know the basics of cover and CIA administrative activities. You are wrong on so many levels that the english language needs a new word to describe a vacuous twit like yourself. I’m open to suggestions.
