March 12, 2006
-- by Dave Johnson
The latest claim that Vakerie Plame was not really a covert agent comes from Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled. The evidence? She said she was employed by "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." And just how does this indicate she worked for the CIA?
Brewster-Jennings was not a terribly convincing cover. According to Dun & Bradstreet, the company, created in 1994, is a "legal services office" grossing $60,000 a year and headed by a chief executive named Victor Brewster. Commercial databases accessible by the Tribune contain no indication that such a person exists.There you have it, indisputable evidence that the company was a CIA front!
The article then says that "Another sign" the company was a CIA front was,
the online resume of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an "engineering consultant" from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA "case officer," the agency's term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants.So OK, that's a mistake. If terrorists have the resources to locate and scan every resume of every person in the United States and cross-check them and find a resume that made this mistake, then they could surmise that the company was a CIA cover, and look at the other employees of the company.
Therefore it's OK for the heads of our government to reveal the identity of covert CIA agents who risk their lives to stop Iran and terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction -- IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN.
(And, by the way, this is what every hostile country in the world is doing now since the White House leaked Plame's identity -- looking at the past and travel history of every employee Brewster-Jennings ever had and every contact that person may have ever had and rounding up those contacts... HOW many deaths did this White House leak cause? HOW much damage? Remember, Valerie Plame was working to protect us by keeping terrorists and specifically Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.)
Update - Larry Johnson has more,
Well, Valerie Plame was safe until the White House pointed reporters in her direction. Even if Crewdson's assertion that Valerie's cover was "thin" (it was not), what we know for a fact is that her neighbors did not know she worked for the CIA. Only those who had a need to know knew.
...Crewdson's searches were conducted after the names of individuals and companies appeared in the news. He searched on those names and found links to the U.S. Government.
...But here is what is really fascinating. Crewdson says he identified 2600 CIA officers but, out of concern for national security, declined to out them. Thank you Mr. Crewdson. At least you understand that blowing someones cover, even a thin one, would be an act of treason. I am in favor of having Crewdson give Bob Novak a lesson in journalistic ethics and responsibility.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
From ther Boston Globe story, Oct 2003, titled "Apparent CIA front didn't offer much cover"
Former intelligence officials confirmed Plame's cover was an invention and that she used other false identities and affiliations when working overseas. "All it was was a telephone and a post office box," said one former intelligence official who asked not to be identified. "When she was abroad she had a more viable cover."
That would contrast with this, from your post:
nd, by the way, this is what every hostile country in the world is doing now since the White House leaked Plame's identity -- looking at the past and travel history of every employee Brewster-Jennings ever had and every contact that person may have ever had and rounding up those contacts...
Posted by: Tom Maguire at March 12, 2006 12:24 PM
Agree with your point that the Crewdson article doesn't prove what it claims to prove -- and probably is a product of a Libby defense leak. Nonetheless, we should never forget that these people care far more about the appearance (and political effect) of their actions, than about actually doing their jobs.
Apparently the "no fly list" is easy to fool for anyone with a laser printer and minimal computer skills. See here. This pisses me off; who wants to be a prop in their theater of fear?
Posted by: janinsanfran at March 13, 2006 7:54 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)