Significance of WINPAC vs Directorate of Operations

[hang a left]

What I am gathering from this little bone that has been thrown our way is; that some document or letter or notes incorrectly identifies Plame's (Flame's)position at the agency. And this document leads straight to who originally possessed this false information. Thus allowing Fitgerald to identify the original leaker.

Side note: I think this leak had to come from someone within the CIA if not Plame or Wilson themselves.

Publication of this revelation, in my mind, serves two purposes. First is alerts the original leaker that they are on to him, and anyone else who subsequently passed on this faulty information. And second, leads me to believe that whoever originated this information attempted to not let the recipients know the truth, perhaps so that they would fearlessly pass on the data thus pissing some people off.

Does this make sense to anyone or do I have too much time on my hands?



snip>
According to Miller's account of a July 8, 2003, meeting with Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, she wrote in her notes that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, or Winpac, unit, which tracks the spread of unconventional arms.

A former intelligence official said Plame did not work at Winpac but for the CIA's clandestine service, known as the directorate of operations. The former official, who is familiar with Plame's activities at the CIA, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

snip>

[crispini]

1. Nice. Very nice.

I tend to agree.

[mmonk]

2. Covering up the crime while in the process

of that crime, like breaking into a house with gloves.

[Beetwasher]

3. Or This Is Planted Dis-Information

Did this info come from Judy's "lost" notebook? I wonder if any of the info in that notebook has been altered in any way, or if any info has been added, or if that notebook is even legit to begin with. Is it possible it was completely forged to serve as dis-info?

[leveymg]

6. That's always possible, but it's also an extra ten years in the slammer

if she gets convicted for obstruction of justice.

[leveymg]

4. Plame was NOC, which I believe is under DOO

That looks a good catch. You may still have too much time on your hands.

Anyone out there have the CIA organization chart who can confirm this?

[hang a left]

7. LOL

No chart but I have a link.

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-10-18T025247Z_01_FOR775038_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml

[HereSince1628]

5. Is " WINPAC" being used as a CYA from the original leaker(s)

Does WINPAC engage undercover operatives? If no, then the leaker perhaps could use this as evidence of ignorance of Plames undercover status.

Rove, Libby, and Cheney have been in this game of revenge for a long time, they are nothing if not clever enough to consider backdoors, parachutes, and other ways to maintain plausible deniability.

[hang a left]

8. That is a good point.

Miller had alot of time to plant that "evidence" just in case. What was it one and a half years from the time of subpoena to actually testifying.

[leveymg]

9. This is extremely relevant to prosecution under the IIPA.

(Intelligence Identies Protect Act of 1982, IIPA) requires proof that the offending official had actual intent to disclose to an unauthorized person the identity of an agent known to be undercover. It's obvious this whole plot was structured to avoid prosecution under IIPA.

However, I don't believe Fritz is going to rely on the IIPA, and will get various players for a combination of perjury, conspiracy, obstruction, and unauthorized disclosure charges.

It's always the cover-up that gets them. We will see. I have no nails left.

[EST]

11. I just bought twenty pounds of nails-the nice, fluted, twisty

galvanized kind, that don't rust when you get blood on 'em. Want some?

[leveymg]

12. Send 10 lbs over. Will need 'em either way:

to build an Ark, in case there are no indictments (and the Deluge follows); or, to construct some open air stockades (you know, the kind they had in the Colonial days, where the public could get up real close to the criminals) at the site of the WTC. We can put Bush-Cheney and all their lieutenants in there for the next several decades.

Bring some hammers! I'll buy the beer!

[EST]

13. Got lotsa' hammers!

I thought I'd left hate behind, years ago. What a ride. In central Illinois, I'm on the highest spot around, away from deep water, nice and quiet.
Enough room for a sizable prison.
This is so creepy.

[peacetalksforall]

10. A half answer is in the date she wrote the note. If it is the

original note and it was written before June of 2003 , it could still be a deliberate act to eliminate the problem of the law in knowingly exposing an undercover agent.

What is needed is what Fitzgerald is doing now - getting sworn testimony.

He probably already asked her whether she was asked to say WINPAC instead of Directorate of Operations - or given what she knows about the law, whether she suggested it or did it on her own.

The answer is not in her notes; her remarks only point to something.

If she designed the note after she got out of prison, it can be answered in a sworn statement. That question may not have been asked yet given the date of her article and the her last day of er testimony.