Asymmetrical Information

It's almost the perfect political storm. Both sides get to argue about secret information that will probably never see the light of day in an official, on-the-record declaration by someone not named "anonymous," so the rampant speculation about the other side's disgusting motives will automatically be 85 percent more outrageous!

Jane, your hypothetical conservatives should be roaring "evinced", not "evidenced".

This quote from Novak sure does make this interesting. I'm not one of the liberals who would call him a liar because he's a conservative. I see no reason to distrust Novak, who has a long history of being an old-fashioned reporter who tracks down his stories the old-fashioned way.

But then what senior administration official is saying that another senior official shopped around the information?

Is it possible that Novak, as worldy-wise as he is, was being used without his knowledge? Can both accusations be true at the same time?

Orbitron, Webster's offers the following definitions of evidence as a verb, which I think are correct within that sentence:

To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.

What on earth are you talking about? Look at the second sentence:

"In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."

What's the lie, on either side? Novak says two senior administration officials told him Plame was a CIA employee. That's illegal.

Because the political damage isn't going to come from some administration official who said something they shouldn't; the political damage is going to come from the claim, if true, that they were shopping this around Washington in an attempt to punish Wilson by blowing the cover of his wife, a covert operative.

Novak is saying that, first, the subject came up in teh course of an interview about something else, and second, that the CIA explicitly told him that she was not a covert operative, which, if true, moves this from the category of hit job to fuck up. And raises the not-entirely-inconceivable possibility that the WaPo's source is lying or misinformed. But either the source is lying or Novak is; there's no way that they can both be right about this, because the source has claimed that the leak came from the White House calling reporters for the purpose of leaking, and because the source is claiming that they told Novak she was off limits.

"That's illegal"

Balderdash. You need to get a grip. It is often common knowledge around Washington, DC, about certain people being employed by the CIA. Also, no law has been broken unless it endangers national security or the safety of CIA operatives in the field. I also strongly believe Ambassador Wilson's wife is a mere analyst---and not a reincarnation of Mata Hari. This would make all the difference.

Why is this non-story getting national headlines? Once again, the media “elite” wish to damage the President. They want to drive Bush’s poll numbers down a s low as possible.

The following article by Cliff May be of some value:

"September 29, 2003, 10:22 a.m.

Spy Games
Was it really a secret that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

It's the top story in the Washington Post this morning as well as in many other media outlets. Who leaked the fact that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA?"

"...and that his (Joseph Wilson) political leanings and associations (not disclosed by the Times and others journalists interviewing him) cast serious doubt on his objectivity."

"What's more, he (Joseph Wilson) was affiliated with the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute and he had recently been the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-Left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions and the no-fly zones that protected Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam."

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/may/may200309291022.asp

I don't know, "administration official accidentally discloses name of CIA operative, blowing a few operations, gets convicted of felony" won't look very good in the paper either.

I think you're reading stuff into Novak's statement that's not there. Look at these two sentences:

"When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'..."

Sentence one: Novak says that when he called the CIA about Plame they said not to use her name, "but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else." In other words "yes, she was part of the Niger mission, but don't use her name." End of phone call.

Sentence two: "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst....." This is not the same as "the CIA told me she was not a covert operator". It's entirely possible his source didn't know, she wasn't a covert operator anymore but used to be, or a bunch of other variations.

Novak's account provides a reasonable explanation of why he did it, but it's still entirely possible that it was "a hit job." I rather doubt they'd be clumsy enough to tell Novak "hey, we want you to blow this operative for us to warn off other leakers." His phrasing is perfectly compatible with the description provided by the Post's sources.

Also, Brokaw has said that an administration official told this to Andrea Mitchell, too, so Novak's account isn't the entire story.

Yet another thing: in Novak's original column, he said she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destructionl."

Operative.

Earth to Jason McCullough. Instapundit helped me to find the following:

“50 U.S.C. sec. 421(a) states the following:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Sec. 421(b) says:

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

And finally, sec. 421(c) says:

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

All of this covers the disclosure of the identity of a covert agent. If Novak is right in saying that "Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives," then the law was not broken.”

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004461.html

Well, Novak said she was an "operator" in the original column. Which is it?

She wasn't "covert." That's the entire point.

"She wasn't "covert." That's the entire point."

And nothing else matters. This was a news event of little importance. To be blunt, it was another cheap attempt to harm President Bush.

Plame is 'covert' if she works for the CIA but friends and neighbors think that she works for someone else.

It doesn't matter if she runs spys or is a spy herself. If she has what they call 'official cover' then she is covert.

Officially, she was/is an analyst for an energy company. But the CIA clearly wouldn't be investingating if she really did work for them. Ergo she's covert.

I suspect that when Novak called the CIA, they didn't want to let on too much about her (after all, that would be illegal), so from their perspective they told him not to mention her, and from his perspective they didn't really tell him not to go with the story. SNAFU.

Even so, whoever told Novak that she was CIA broke the law and it's pretty clear at this point that someone did. The only real question is who, (and was it a white house official...)

I think someone is going to prison for this. (unless Bush pardons??). Now, Wilson fingered Rove, but then backed off of that. I think it's unlikely that Rove will go down. I suspect that he knew. In fact suspect that Rove would have made sure that if someone did this without his knowledge or approval that they would have been fired already. But I doubt that the imputus came from Rove. The office of the Vice President had more personal reasons for going after Wilson, so my bet is Scooter Libby is going down for this.

My guess is that this

One more thing. There is no reason to think that someone has to be lying here. The only contradiction between what Novak says here and the facts we believe from his story and other sources is that he says 'Nobody called me'.

But this could be literally true and still square with the other known facts if:

1) they sent him an email
2) he called them (or visited their offices??) for some other reason and picked up the story by happenstance.

I'm sure we could think of others.

In fact, since he didn't say "nobody contacted me" I'm inclined to think that he's just parsing his words very carefully.

Well, we do know Robert Novak is being economical with the truth: Ambassador Wilson is not just a "former Clinton administration official" but a "former George H.W. Bush administration official" too...

Given that he makes a lot of stuff up (every column having to do with Alan Greenspan, for example), why presume that there is a chance Novak is telling it straight?

This is a serious question: I don't understand why anyone takes Novak as anything other than a completely unreliable source.

“This is a serious question: I don't understand why anyone takes Novak as anything other than a completely unreliable source.”

I have long considered Robert Novak to be a second rate thinker. Is he an honest man? I simply don’t know the answer to this question. Brad DeLong, however, ignores the harsh fact that the “mainstream” media mostly ignored Joseph Wilson’s ultra left wing inclinations. Gee whiz, why would they do that? Also, would either the Clinton or the Bush administration assign someone to such a sensitive diplomatic post whose married partner is directly connected to the CIA’s covert operations section? Does this make any sense whatsoever? I don’t think so.

Let’s get serious: this alleged scandal would never have made it to the front pages if Bill Clinton were still in office. This is much ado about nothing. Everybody who was anybody knew that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA. Thus, it’s obvious that somebody married to such a public figure would be useless for covert intelligence work.

Not just a "former Clinton administration official" or a "former George H.W. Bush administration official" actually Mr. Wilson got his start in State during the Carter administration, he also served in the offices of Senator Al Gore and House Speaker Tom Foley, but he's probably best known for orchestrating Bill Clinton's African Adventure, the $42 million dollar boondoggle that amounted to a site seeing tour for Bill 'n' Hill and 1200 of their closest friends.

BTW, I agree with you about Novak - I don't know why anyone believes anything he writes. I think the original story is suspect. :-)

“...actually Mr. Wilson got his start in State during the Carter administration, he also served in the offices of Senator Al Gore and House Speaker Tom Foley...”

But do you think that Bill Clinton would have been dumb enough to appoint Mr. Wilson to such a sensitive diplomatic post if his wife was indeed a secret agent of the CIA? I can understand such an appointment if she were just a mere analyst---but a covert operative? If this might actually be the case, then why aren’t the media headlining their stories:

“President Clinton was stupid enough to assign a diplomat to sensitive position who is married to a CIA secret agent!”

Wouldn’t this be the real scandal?

If the identity of Wilson's wife was such a big secret, I wonder why she was identified in Wilson's biography at the Middle East Institute (where he serves as an adjunct scholar):

http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html

Can you say "manufactured outrage"? I knew that you could!

If the choice is between an "error" or a "conspiracy," choose "error" every time and you will be right 99.9% of the time.

I completely applaud your stance, Ms. Galt. I think any right-thinking person, when faced with a serious situation where there are competing claims of truth, should just sit it out and not give a damn. After all, caring is for those naive partisan fools. We sophisticates are above that sort of thing.

Or not. But at least your position looks a lot less ridiculously desperate than Mr. Thomson's.

Mike Kozlowski seems to understand manufactured outrage quite well!

"But at least your position looks a lot less ridiculously desperate than Mr. Thomson's."

Desperate? How so? Please be a bit more precise concerning the alleged weaknesses of my thesis.

Mike Kozlowski is right. Always emote first and get the facts later.

Earth to Jason McCullough. Instapundit helped me to find the following:

“50 U.S.C. sec. 421(a) states the following:

Is it fair to imply that people who can't cite the US Code from memory are living elsewhere, apart from Earth?

Where is the civility?

; )

Apart from that, I think folks are being unfair to Novak's reputation. His independence from the Republican party on matters regarding the Middle East demonstrates his no propagandist. He may get his facts wrong, but as we know, many columnists do, but I think he certainly does more reporting than Broder, Will, or many other prominent columnists.

I think it's conceivable that he was duped on this, so long as the "shopping" aspect of the accusation proves true.

On other hand, TPM has got some stuff suggesting that Novak has yet to get his stories straight.

What fun intrigue can be.

It won't happen but...

All of this speculation rests on the assumption that the reporters, come hell or high water, won't reveal their source(s).

Yet here we have what appears to be the commission of a federal crime with national security implications.

And there are multiple reports that the information was being "shopped around" to a number of media figures.

Some person or persons had to be doing the "shopping." I am sure that the D.C. rumor mill already knows who they are.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if just one of the reporters involved would step forward and say, "I got one of the calls. _________ is the person who called me. Here's what they said."

But instead, we'll play shadow games for the next year (or as long as the press can continue to generate stories). And we may never know exactly what happend. Or even if it was all made up.

When do you stop protecting your access and start protecting your country? Or is the press in D.C. today just as corrupt as the press in pre-war Baghdad?

Jane, I know that "evidence" is commonly used as a verb, and modern dictionaries are descriptive, so it doesn't surprise me that you found the usage in Webster's (which one, by the way?). I didn't mean that you were wrong; I just thought "evince" was the better word.

I think when most people use "evidence" they have half-forgotten "evince", and get tripped up by the similarity in spelling and meaning, the way people use "depreciate" for "deprecate". You seem to care about your writing, so I thought I'd jog your elbow.

If you consciously chose "evidenced" over "evinced", please accept my apologies.

"Also, Brokaw has said that an administration official told this to Andrea Mitchell, too, so Novak's account isn't the entire story."

And now that too isn't looking quite so damning:

NBC News said Monday evening that reports that Mitchell was one of the reporters who was called were not completely accurate. Mitchell was contacted in connection with the story, it said, but only after Novak revealed the woman’s name in his column in July.

NBC News has decided not to report the woman’s name. MSNBC.com has removed her name from its coverage.

The right-wing "she wasn't really covert and there wasn't really a crime" spin is oh so charming.

Look, nimrods: The CIA itself determined that a crime had been committed and referred the case to the DOJ.

Let me make it shorter and simpler:

The CIA determined that a crime had been committed.

Do you really think the spooks are so stupid as to make a huge case out over some analyst? Do you really think they wouldn't expect to look foolish by the time that story came to light?

Get a grip, people.

I can clear this thing up. Novak is lying:

From tomorrow's LATimes summary article:

"...Novak was wrong on those accounts, according to the CIA. "We wouldn't file a crimes report (if the case didn't involve an agent undercover)," a U.S. official said.

Period.

End.

Of.

Story.

This still leaves the theory that she was undercover at one time, years ago, but no longer is... in fact it looks more plausible by the moment. And yet another "unnamed official" isn't exactly going to clear things up.

On the one hand, Novak today: "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this ..."

One the other, Novak, interviewed by Newsday in July, via Josh Marshall: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Actually if you look at the full Novak quote from Crossfire, he is still saying that it was given to him. What he said in July was that he didn't seek it out, and he still says that today. He never said he got a call.

Actually if you look at the full Novak quote from Crossfire, he is still saying that it was given to him. What he said in July was that he didn't seek it out, and he still says that today. He never said he got a call.

Let’s get serious: this alleged scandal would never have made it to the front pages if Bill Clinton were still in office.

Boggle. Never would have made the front page? Throughout his entire presidency, Clinton had well-funded teams of people sniffing back along his trail for even the slightest whiff of scandal, and you say that nothing would have happened if evidence surfaced that one or more members of Slick Willie the Draft-Dodging Scum's senior administration had sold out a CIA agent for political gain? The man was impeached because he lied about having extramarital sex. If the Republican attack-dogs thought that they had a serious chance of nailing him for treason, the resulting firestorm would have been front and center for every media outlet in the country for weeks.

And no, none of this means I like or liked Bill Clinton. The man was and is a sack of sleaze with all the backbone and moral fiber of a dead jellyfish.

However, since it's Bush and not Clinton, it's hard to say how this will all play out in real life. Bush has the incalcuably huge advantage of working with a friendly Congress. There won't be any investigation from that quarter. There won't be any calls for impeachment. Will the whole thing just blow over in few days? Very possibly. It all depends on whether anyone keeps the leaks dripping, and if there's no bright shiny new calamity to dangle in front of the media.

If the choice is between an "error" or a "conspiracy," choose "error" every time and you will be right 99.9% of the time.

This seems to me to be far too high a percentage. Try testing it over the dataset "changes of government in the African continent, 1945-2002". You'll find that 75% of them took place as a result of coup d'etat, and a coup is by definition a conspiracy.

Whether or not she was still a covert operative when this thing broke, I think she would still have to be covert, no matter what she was now doing, in order to protect sources she gathered when she was an operative...

And yes, this whole "she wasn't covert" thing is obviously wrong. The CIA surely knows, and they say a crime was committed. That means she was covert, no matter what Novak says, and no matter what the truth of whether the White House was trying to shop it out.

Well, I'm not one to get pedantic, but dsquared started it...

a coup is by definition a conspiracy

Well, yeah, but you somehow missed this caveat:

If the choice is between an "error" or a "conspiracy"

Ever seen a coup that was an error?

"Whoops, I accidentally took over the government, silly me!"

Geoduck has nailed David Thompson's position to the wall, and it's clearly that of a Rove operative.

If this had happened during Clinton's watch, you'd have that jackass Donaldson predicting impeachment or resignation within weeks.

If no crime was committed someone from this thread should inform Scott McClellen. He spent all Monday morning denying that anyone at the White House outed Plame. McClellen said if anyone at the White House did out Plame they would be fired "at a minimum." After reading this thread, I wonder why his panties are in a bunch.

"Whoops, I accidentally took over the government, silly me!"

Kind of like what happened in Iraq?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=104&topic_id=433309&mesg_id=433309

>The current spin from administration defenders within and without the mainstream media is that Valerie Plame was only an analyst, and not an operative. This, somehow, is supposed to lessen the blow of an administration willing to attack the families of its critics. Yet the characterization of Plame as an analyst is factually incorrect. For one, Robert Novak himself indicated as much in the original report that birthed this scandal. “Wilson never worked for the CIA,” wrote Novak, “but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”

>Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. “I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know,” said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, “that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.”

. . .

Furthermore.

>McGovern further elaborated on the damage done when such an agent has their cover blown. “This causes a great deal of damage,” said McGovern. “These kinds of networks take ten years to develop. The reason why they operate under deep cover is that the only people who have access to the kind of data we need cannot be associated in any way with the American intelligence community. Our operatives live a lie to maintain these networks, and do so out of patriotism. When they get blown, the operatives themselves are in physical danger. The people they recruit are also in physical danger, because foreign intelligence services can make the connections and find them. Operatives like Valerie Plame are real patriots.”

Actually, what Novak says could be true without it conflicting with the other reports that have been made. He says that he was talking to a senior administration official and he brought up the topic - and earlier this summer he said he was given the information. Both of those comments are consistant. He says he also contacted another administration official and had the information confirmed. Again, that's consistant with what else he's said.

None of that, however, makes the claim that the officials had called other reporters offering this information untrue. In fact, Novak's statement gives us no information at all on whether the officials spoke to any other reporters about Plame or under what circumstances those conversations might have occured. If Novak had an interview with one of the administration officials set up, then they wouldn't have needed to call him - but that doesn't mean they didn't call other reporters.

As for his comment that the CIA told him she was an analyst and asked him not to use her name, it's unlikely that the CIA would have come right out and confirmed she was a covert operative - that would have been outing her themselves, and whatever their faults, I think they're smarter than that. For the same reason, they may not have gone overboard trying to tell Novak not to use the name. They may have hoped that by asking him not to use the name, that would be sufficient.

Novak is at least confused saying "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'..." but in his original column referred to her as an "operative". Bad Journalism or back tracking?

Now I understand what Sean was talking about

The article Sean references (see above) refutes this paragraph
from the Washington Post:

"She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service
and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction.
Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used
overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence
sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned
about the disclosure because it could allow foreign
intelligence services to track down some of her former
contacts and lead to the exposure of agents."

But clearly these top officials at the CIA were not
aware that her maiden name was in fact in use publically,
at least by her husband, Joseph Wilson.

"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has
two sons and two daughters."

The story has legs because the media hasn't figured out its story line yet. Lots of navel gazing still going on. The story as yet to emerge:

A. One-by-one the shopped reporters will tell their stories of why they refused to use it.

B. One low level WH staffer given up by Rove and portrayed as a loose or misguided rogue who accidently "found" the wife's status and passed it on to Novak.

C. One name of the real "high level" WH official who provided the name to Novak.

D. The second WH official named.

E. Firings of all who are then hired by Halliburton.

F. Pardons by Bush

G. Whitewashed investgations by GOP House and Senate committees.

H. End of story, until Bush loses in '04.

Why has no one ever been prosecuted for this before?

"A 1982 federal law specifically prohibits the unauthorized
disclosure of the identity of a clandestine intelligence
officer. Nobody has been prosecuted under the law, according
to Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government
secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists."

and

"The official said the agency is obligated under federal
law to refer leaks of classified information to the
Justice Department. The agency refers about 50 such
leaks a year, the official said."

from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak30sep30,1,7004579.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson admitted
Monday morning that he fabricated a key part of his
allegation that the White House deliberately blew his
wife's cover as a CIA weapons analyst.

Wilson has accused top Bush political strategist
Karl Rove of leaking the name to columnist Robert Novak,
telling a Seattle audience last month that he wanted
"to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched
out of the White House in handcuffs."

But he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that
he got "carried away" and made up the Rove allegation
out of thin air.

from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/29/143328.shtml

Sean's point is nonsense. It was common knowledge that Wilson had a wife and his wife had a maiden name and married name. The crime is pointing to the name and saying she's a covert CIA operative. Is this so hard to understand?

How many people (that shouldn't have) knew Valerie Plume
was a CIA operative?

Clifford May:

"That wasn't news to me. I had been told that -- but not
by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned
it from someone who formerly worked in the government and
he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer
it was something that insiders were well aware of."

from http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

Why won't Clifford May tell us who broke the law by telling him the name of an undercover CIA operative? If it was such an offhanded manner, why was it off the record?

Perhaps he's..... misrepresenting?

Brittain33,

It's the CIA, not Sean, that asserts that revealing
Valerie Plame as a CIA agent rather than Valerie Wilson
is especially problematic, or at least according to the
Washington Post.

Possibly the Washington Post reporter is confused.

Or then again it may be that Valerie Plame when
acting as an operative never revealed her connection
to her husband to those she interacted with and the
connection between Valerie Plame and Valerie Wilson
was something long obscured and out of the public eye and
unlikely to be discovered by enemies overseas.

So maybe there is a rationale for the CIA to be concerned
about this, and doubtless they are then delighted
to know that former ambassador Joseph Wilson had
suddenly taken to identifying her by her maiden name.
(Why?)

I am increasingly becoming more convinced that no editor of the Washington Post would have approved similar articles concerning the Clinton administration. Instead, the editor would have appropriately stated that Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment is an open secret. Therefore, such a person cannot be "outed." It's as simple as that.

Lastly, I strongly doubt that a real covert intelligence agent would be widely known among the insiders of Washington, DC. Can somebody offer a plausible argument to show me the possible error of my thought processes? Come on, let’s give it a try.

"Why won't Clifford May tell us who broke the law by telling him the name of an undercover CIA operative? If it was such an offhanded manner, why was it off the record?"

Get real. It's turning out that probably a large number of people knew about her CIA employment. Thus, it would be outright weird for Cliff May to cite merely one person. Mrs. Wilson was not apparently a female James Bond---just a mere analyst who might have done a little traveling. The law that you are citing pertains only to covert agents risking their lives for our country.

The administration is clearly guilty on this one. Let's look at motive.

1. Novak had no reason to make this up or even dig for this. While he certainly has every motive to lie about it now. As the administration is known to punish journalists.
2.The administration had every reason to hurt Wilson at the time.
3. Wilson has no reason to pursue this issue if not for serious injury to his person or his wife.

And the clincher is the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world to disprove if the administration really wasn't involved. Scotty and every other official is obfuscating like crazy, which means they think they can just brazen their way out of this. Since the effort they are putting into the brazen deflection is not trivial, and is far greater than just presenting the phone logs. Therefore they have something to hide.

By Occam's Razor they did it.

We need an independent counsel. These guys are going down.

"Wilson has no reason to pursue this issue if not for serious injury to his person or his wife. "

Baloney. Joseph Wilson intensely despises the Bush administration. This man would almost certainly be glad to exaggerate a rather innocuous situation if it might hurt the President. Moreover, the Washington liberal media would also be glad to offer its full assistance.

From Wilson via AP this morning

===============
"I did not mean at that time to imply that I thought that Karl Rove was the source or the authorizer, just that I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl Rove was the personification of the White House political operation," Wilson said in a telephone interview.

But then he added: "I have people, who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he (Rove), at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there.

"Among the phone calls I received were those that said `White House sources are saying that it's not about the 16 words, it's about Wilson and his wife.' And two people called me up and specifically mentioned Rove's name," he said.

===========================

This was directly from the White House. Rove himself may not have made the calls but he will certainly be found responsible.

Bring on the independent counsel.

This is not a politcal storm, this is straw that broke the camel's back.

Novak enjoyed a brief period of credibility back when he was the sole source for this story. Now that he's outlived his usefulness, he can go back to being an untrustworthy right-wing hack.

Is the CIA playing politics?

"It has to be seen as puzzling that the agency would
deal with an inquiry from the White House on a sensitive
national-security matter by sending a retired, Bush-bashing
diplomat with no investigative experience."

from http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

This is a separate issue, although clearly related, and
although it doesn't excuse whomever revealed Valerie Plame's
CIA connection to Robert Novak, it's still quite a serious
business.

Ok, first a brief recap.

President Bush makes a statement in a State of the Union
address that British intelligence believes that Saddam
sought uranium in africa. Verifiably true and the british
intelligence agency in question still maintains this, but
there's a political firestorm because doubt is expressed
that Saddam actually did such a thing, not helped by the
lack of public evidence for the assertion, and then the
allegation is made that Bush lied (which overseas becomes
simply that "Bush lied" without further exploration of
detail).

Ok at this point the White House requests that the CIA
look into the 'Saddam sought uranium in africa' idea,
presumbably with the hope that the CIA will find
evidence that Saddam in fact did so.

And how does the CIA respond? They send a non-investigator,
a joke of an investigator, former ambassador Joseph Wilson,
a man who is furthermore a blatent political enemy of the
White House.

Isn't there something seriously wrong with a federal
agency striving to undermine a White House?

First, it's prudent to wait until the case has a bit more fact in it before opinionating. But if you enjoy looking silly, who am I to tell you no?

Second, a DoJ investigation doesn't automatically mean there was wrongdoing. It's standard procedure in nearly every government endeavor to report suspected wrongdoing to the responsible agency and then (this is the key here) wait for them to determine if actual wrongdoing has taken place. But again, if you want to skip past the actual process to the conclusion well in advance of the onset of fact, be my guest. I'm just going to sit and laugh at you.

Which doesn't, by the way, mean I take this lightly. Not at all. Any exposure of classified information should be taken very seriously indeed. Seriously enough so that you don't stop looking before you've reached the end of what there is to find. Seriously enough to think that such things merit serious investigation, as opposed to public trial by a bunch of clucking hens.

Mark A: If you keep repeating right-wing spin you'll get dizzy. Joe Wilson is a bright and capable career diplomat who strikes me as not having much of a political agenda at all. Only an administration that is so allergic to criticism would try so hard to smear him. Read the following interview with Josh Marshall and see for yourself:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.interview.pdf

Furthermore, as far as the "it's no big deal" spin referred to farther above:

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. “I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know,” said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, “that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.”

McGovern further elaborated on the damage done when such an agent has their cover blown. “This causes a great deal of damage,” said McGovern. “These kinds of networks take ten years to develop. The reason why they operate under deep cover is that the only people who have access to the kind of data we need cannot be associated in any way with the American intelligence community. Our operatives live a lie to maintain these networks, and do so out of patriotism. When they get blown, the operatives themselves are in physical danger. The people they recruit are also in physical danger, because foreign intelligence services can make the connections and find them. Operatives like Valerie Plame are real patriots.”

I made several mistakes in that last post. First I shouldn't
have referred to Joseph Wilson as "a joke of an investigator."
I believe his 'investigation' leaves much to be desired
but that description was hyperbolic.

Second, more seriously, the Joseph Wilson mission to Niger
was before Bush's state of the Union address.

So if someone in the CIA was advancing their political agenda
it was at a lessor level than I had imagined.

bizutti,

Nowhere have I said that Valerie Plame's exposure was not
a serious business. Nowhere did I ever say it was
"it's no big deal."

As for Joseph Wilson, well, one of the 'virtues' of the
internet is that one can write something quickly that on
further exploration you wish you hadn't said.

It was this article from The Nation,

ttp://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s=wilson

that leads to believe he's a blatent opponent of the
Bush administration.

Quoting Wilson:

"Then what's the point of this new American imperialism?
The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign
policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally
eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond
expanding US global influence to force revolutionary
change on the region. American pre-eminence in the Gulf
is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing
short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked
leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is
the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The
new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape
our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a
breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris
in the extreme."

Mark, the Washington Post said that Valerie Plame/Wilson was known to her friends and her husbands' colleagues as an "energy consultant", not a covert operative. Her dual lives were not dependent solely on the change of last name--ask any high school reunion coordinator how "covert" that could be.

Clifford May's friends might have known better about her background, but until he mentions who they are or provides some support for his assertion, we have to take the CIA's claim as somewhat more authoritative. Obviously it couldn't have been that well-known in Washington if senior administration officials felt they had to call six or more journalists (including consummate insiders like Greenspan's wife) to inform them.

President Bush makes a statement in a State of the Union
address that British intelligence believes that Saddam
sought uranium in africa. Verifiably true...

This recap has a bit of a problem here -- the SotU said "British intelligence has learned", not "British intelligence believes". The former presents the object of the sentence as established fact (consider the difference between "Ambassador Wilson believes that Karl Rove was behind the leak" vs. "Ambassador Wilson has learned that Karl Rove was behind the leak"). Given that the Bush administration knew at the time that the intelligence was in doubt (pace the ever-forgetful Condi Rice), the statement is not "verifiably true".

David Perron wrote: "Second, a DoJ investigation doesn't automatically mean there was wrongdoing."

David, the point about the referral to the DoJ was to counter the argument that Plame was not a covert operative. If she was not a covert operative, the CIA would never have bothered to refer this matter to the DoJ. There still is a question about who said what, but there is no question as to Plame's status.

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. “I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know,” said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, “that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.”

Who is this Ray McGovern, and why is he blowing Valerie Plames cover?? He just recited her resume, so I guess he's broken the law, right??

*I believe the Justice Department was called in because the CIA doesn't have the power or authority to question/subpeona anyone.

*Too many anonymous sources quoting other anonymous sources at this time for me to worry. Andrea Mitchell was named as one of the reporters who was contacted with the leak, but know she says that's not true.

*MSNBC said the administration was caught off guard by this. That wouldn't have happened during the Clinton administration, since Janet Reno and Eric Holder would have given a "heads up" way ahead of time.

David Thomson wrote: "Lastly, I strongly doubt that a real covert intelligence agent would be widely known among the insiders of Washington, DC. Can somebody offer a plausible argument to show me the possible error of my thought processes?"

David, your assertions about what would have happened had this occurred in the Clinton administration are simply laughable. The Washington press corps was in full attack mode, as was the Republican-controlled Congress. This would have been front-page news in every major newspaper in the country. Both the Senate and House would have launched major investigations. And you would have been up in arms, screaming for Clinton's head.

As to whether Plame's status was "widely known," your only evidence for that is one National Review article by a writer whose friends include several of the people whose names are on the list as possible sources for these leaks!

In short, you are grasping at straws.

If she was not a covert operative, the CIA would never have bothered to refer this matter to the DoJ.

I think that's a false assumption. There's going to be an investigation if there's any question at all of wrongdoing. It doesn't automatically mean there is, it just means there's a question in someone's mind that prompted them to report it. Think of it as an IRS audit. Getting audited doesn't mean you're guilty of tax evasion, it just means there's some indication of possible irregularity.

Keep flailing, Mark. Wilson's Nation article was published in February 2003. His trip to Niger took place in February 2002. So if the Nation piece is all you have that "leads to believe he's a blatent opponent of the Bush administration," that sort of takes the luster from NRO's conceit that there's something "puzzling" about such a Bush-basher being sent on the mission.

So, the claim is that Valerie Plame was some undercover operative. Then what was her husband doing going public (in the NY Times)with details of an assignment he had been given by her bosses?

So, the claim is that Valerie Plame was some undercover operative. Then what was her husband doing going public (in the NY Times)with details of an assignment he had been given by her bosses?

Okay, Mark, you spend a great deal of time deriding Wilson's trip to Africa, but, er, wasn't he absolutely correct about the Niger stuff not having happened? I mean, impugn him all you want, but despite his supposed bumbling incompetence, he was completely correct that the deal never happened. So, it seems to me that it's up to you to present some actual evidence that hs didn't know what he was doing.

Secondly, quite obviously, Wilson's wife *was* an undercover operative. This seems impossible to deny at this point, and the fact that people are still doing so, usually using hypotheticals like "if she was an undercover operative, explain this supposedly discordant piece of evidence."

Since she very clearly was an undercover operative, one should be asking "Given that she was an undercover operative, how are we to explain this seemingly discordant fact?"

Sigh.... From MSNBC:

CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the woman’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said.

CNN has also reported that their sources confirm that Plame was a covert operative. In short, while other items in this mess are open to question, Plame's status is not.

David Perron wrote: "I think that's a false assumption in regard to my comment that "if she was not a covert operative, the CIA would never have bothered to refer this matter to the DoJ."

David, there are still questions about who did what, but the CIA knows damn well whether Plame was a covert operative. If she was not, then clearly no wrongdoing has occurred and there is absolutely no reason to refer this matter to the DoJ. As I noted above, the CIA's lawyers, in the form they submitted to the DoJ, have confirmed this.

Patrick wrote: "Then what was her husband doing going public (in the NY Times) with details of an assignment he had been given by her bosses?"

Patrick, in what world do you live that that sentence even begins to make sense? Wilson has his own career. He was selected for a mission. He carried out that mission. He later wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about that mission. How on earth does his wife even begin to enter into it?

Wilson's mission was hardly secret, nor was his status. He was free to do and say any damn thing he pleased about it. Plame was a covert operative, not Wilson.

Ahhh...thanks, Paul. Odd, though, that the entire rest of the article seems to disclaim "leak" with "alleged". Sounds as if the CIA is quite sure there was a leak.

I hope they nail the person that leaked. No matter how high or low in the government, the responsible party needs to be punished commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Still, it now looks as if the question has narrowed from whether or not there was a leak, to who leaked. So, question: in a case like this, where there was clearly wrongdoing, is it a matter of ethics for Novak et al to conceal the identity of their source, or is it more ethical for them to turn in the source? I'm going with the latter, myself.

Oh, I should unconfuse things a bit by saying that the article PaulB linked to is the first mention I've seen that states outright that classified information had been divulged.

Well, the White House counsel, in advising people not to destroy documents, etc., clarifies Plame's status. He identifies her as an undercover operative. That should put an end to the "glorified secretary" idiocy that has been rampant..

John,

No, John, I don't think we can conclude as you say:

"Okay, Mark, you spend a great deal of time deriding
Wilson's trip to Africa, but, er, wasn't he absolutely
correct about the Niger stuff not having happened?"

Joseph Wilson was asked to go to Niger, where he had
been previously stationed, and question his old acquaintences
on whether they or people they knew of were selling
yellowcake to Iraq.

Wilson did so; he wined and dined for eight days.
Now your assumption is that he didn't find anything
and that this proves "nothing happened."

Actually it doesn't. You're assuming (a) that the people
Wilson spoke to are the only people that could have
been doing this, and (b) that they would have told Joseph
Wilson if it was.

Neither of which seem reasonable.

The amazing thing is he did discover something:

"In an effort to inquire about certain reports
involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts,
on their own initiative, asked an individual with
ties to the region to make a visit to see what he
could learn. He reported back to us that one of the
former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was
unaware of any contract being signed between Niger
and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his
tenure in office. The same former official also said
that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and
insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi
delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations"
between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted
the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

The "former official" here is Joseph Wilson, though
readers of Wilson's article on his Niger expedition
in The New York Times might be surprised to learn
that.

The source for the quote is George Tenet with British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirming.

See http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/09/we_try_for_a_co.html

"The CIA determined that a crime had been committed.

Do you really think the spooks are so stupid as to make a huge case out over some analyst?"

Actually it wouldn't be stupid FOR THE CIA to make a stink about it even over an analyst. They want to protect their perogative to classify people as they see fit. From the perspective of the CIA it woud definitely be worth promoting.

However the story, as an indictment of the Bush administration, isn't all that exciting unless she is something more than an analyst.

Except that her dual lives WERE dependent on her maiden name, according to Wilson himself.

Is the Plame/Wilson source a whistleblower - protected by federal law?

Think about the substance underlying the Plame/Wilson story.

Did Plame hire Wilson to go to Africa based on their relationship? Was this nepotism? Was this a violation of contracting rules or other CIA rules or laws?

If so, whoever told the press about such nepotism and/or other violation is a whistleblower, and is protected by federal law.

There are two misconceptions that need clarification;

1) The CIA relying SOLEY on the investigations of Joseph Wilson into the Iraq/Niger connection. There have been articles indicating the CIA sent at least three teams of investigators to check out the connection at the behest of the VP.

2) Nepotism in the selection of Wilson. The CIA selected Wilson for the assignment, and his wife was asked to intercede after the fact. There does not appear to have been quid pro quo as insinuated.

Yeah, that's something I don't get. Taking as given that she was a covert operative or otherwise -- and I have no reason to believe she wasn't -- there is no way in hell that any potential foreign contacts knew her as either "Valerie Wilson" or "Valerie Plame," given that both names are available through rudimentary searching and will turn up the fact that she's married to Wilson, a man who has served as an Ambassador in the Middle East. Using either of those names to develop assets in foreign countries, under that circumstance, would be an act of monumental incompetence. Yet Wilson claims that the blown cover hinges on the idea that her maiden name, under which she worked as a covert, was unknown to the public -- a fact which has been shown to be untrue.

Just what the hell is going on here?

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. “I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know,” said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, “that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.”

Um, this guy has just revealed more than anyone else: He gave us her job description and area of expertise. Shouldn't he be facing some charges soon?

Am I the only one who’s outraged by the fact that Congress, having used several hundred words
in three separate criminal code sections – making nuanced and nitpicking distinctions between (a) “having or
having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent”; and (b) “as a
result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent”;
and (c) “in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and
with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States” – all for the express purpose of imposing severe criminal sanctions on the activity of exposing “covert agents,” was then too damn dumb to add a definitional section (d), specifying what the hell
is supposed to be covered by the term “covert agent”?

Such stupidity is dangerous.

Folks, you're missing an important point here: Novak says he called CIA for confirmation, and CIA said "yes, she works for us, but we'd prefer you didn't publish that."

This is exactly what CIA would say about any overt, open, day-to-day employee, say if someone called for a job verification for a car loan.

If someone were actually covert, the answer to the question would be "who?"

I actually know this from experience. Not that I ever worked for the CIA, of course.

I'm just wondering how the wife of an ambassadoris also a 'deep cover' operative. Deep Cover is a very specific term, it refers to a very dangerous service, one that usually doesn't involve positions as the wife of a public official.

"Novak says he called CIA for confirmation, and CIA said "yes, she works for us, but we'd prefer you didn't publish that.""

The "CIA" did not talk to Novak. A confidential source at the CIA did. In other words, the source was not an official one, but rather an individual inclined to help Novak. Such a person might well not have followed CIA procedure.

One thing the confidential source knows is that it would be a felony to name Plame if she were a covert operative. So it's hardly surprising the source did not explain Plame's job.

The maiden name/married name thing is a read herring. "Joseph Wilson's wife is a CIA agent" was the objectionable bit.

Other news sources (e.g., CNN) have contacted their own CIA sources and verified that Plame is indeed a covert operative and that this is serious.

Jack wrote: "I'm just wondering how the wife of an ambassador is also a 'deep cover' operative."

Jack, he hasn't been an ambassador for years and it's not clear that her term as an operative overlapped his term as an ambassador.

just some random points:

1. Wilson donated the maximum legal amount to Bush's election campaign in 1999 -- so its hard to call him a hard core Bush hater. A lot of wealthy people donate to candidates that they don't end up voting for as favors to friends soliciting money or for other reasons, but I can't imagine that someone who detests Bush would spend $1,000 to get him elected President.

2. The Justice Department has gone from preliminary investigation to criminal investigation -- so they think there's some heavy smoke here, and they're looking for the source of the fire.

3. It may take some litigation to get the answers, but they'll eventually come out. Reporters are not going to be able to quash a subpoena in order to protect their sources when the leak itself was a crime. I predict they'll fight the subpoenas, but eventually a court order will come down directing them to give up their sources. I think that's bad news for Bush because it will keep this story alive for months before we get a resolution.

Look, nimrods: The CIA itself determined that a crime had been committed and referred the case to the DOJ.

Maybe it's just because I'm politically libertarian, but I fail to see how "a government agency says X" equates to "X is true". Especially where the CIA -- an organization not known for its firm grasp of, or respect for, US law -- is concerned.

One thing we know for certain here is that the CIA has been embarassed -- an agent of theirs (covert or not) has been revealed as such, and from the looks of things they were dippy enough to confirm her identity when Robert Novak called to ask about it. Crime or no, you can be sure of one thing: they want someone's head on a plate, whether they have a legal right to it or not.

Wilson is "apolitical" like Wesley Clark is... they used to be Republicans now they're fully in the tank for the Democrats. Wilson's own statements prove he's not "apolitical" as he has claimed on CNN and elsewhere... he has admitted giving to Kerry as well.

Quite right. Wilson is no longer apolitical. The Bush administration (and Rove in particular) has made an enemy of him. They've created a political being where there was none before.

And, since he is an honorable man who cares about his country. He will be standing up to prove them liars until such time as they are removed from power.

What I want to know is - What does Poppy Bush think about all of this?

Quite right. Wilson is no longer apolitical. The Bush administration (and Rove in particular) has made an enemy of him. They've created a political being where there was none before.

Required: A demonstration that he has only recently adopted these views.

And, since he is an honorable man who cares about his country. He will be standing up to prove them liars until such time as they are removed from power.

Always easy to say when the party in question is clearly on 'your' side of the fence and still running west, of course...

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether Wilson is political, apolitical, or even something else altogether. It doesn't explain, excuse or otherwise mitigate the public outing of a covert CIA operative. Complain about Wilson all you want, but he's entirely irrelevant to this story.

From NewsHour (Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department):

TERENCE SMITH: Larry Johnson, explain what the dangers are that are inherent in identifying an undercover operator. What is the worry here?

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

....TERENCE SMITH: We should point out for the record that we invited Bob Novak to join this discussion. He told me this afternoon that he had said all he had to say on this. Your reaction, Larry?

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

....TERENCE SMITH: Is there any evidence so far that any damage to national security or individuals has resulted from this?

LARRY JOHNSON: No, not to my knowledge but that's not the issue. It is the principle. You do not -- it is not up to the journalists to decide which officer they are going to out. We saw this in the 70s with Marchetti and others and Philip Agee who outed officers and they were killed. I don't want to wait until we get a body count. The principle's established: do not divulge the names of these people. In my own career trainee class I did not know Joe's wife last name; we went by our first initials.

TERENCE SMITH: You were in the same class with her?

LARRY JOHNSON: I was in the same class with her. I was Larry J. In fact, when I first saw her last name I didn't recognize her until one of other my classmates who's out now called me up and said, hey. To realize this is a terrific woman, she's a woman of great integrity and other people that don't know her were trying to suggest that she is the one that initiated that. That is such nonsense. This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

Some of us are interested in whether or not there was significant high-level incompetence involved in appointments, leading to Wilson's involvement in the uranium query and the consequent revelation of his wife's involvement in the first place.

That in itself could prove to be an important story, and for those of us wishing to discover where that one goes, it IS relevant.

Now we're hearing Wilson isn't just giving to Kerry, he's meeting with his advisors...

This guy left the CIA in 1989... what is relevant is what Plame was doing since 1998... the question is does he know this and how does he, if so?

The question is of interest to those desparately trying to change the subject from top white house officials damaging national security for petty political interests.

And no one else.

And if you bothered to read a little bit outside of the freeperverse. You would aready know that Wilson was probably the most qualified person around to make that investigation.

TBogg has posted the man's resume. It's impressively relevant to the job he was asked to do:

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_tbogg_archive.html#106495516291120766

"Some of us are interested in whether or not there was significant high-level incompetence involved in appointments, leading to Wilson's involvement in the uranium query"

So let's see...we have a felony committed here, a breach of national security, and you're looking off to the side to see if someone was incompetent in appointing an investigator (an investigator whose report was, in fact, corroborated by other independent investigations, both at the time and subsequently)? And this is the issue that is bothering you?

Excuse me, what planet do you live on?

Joseph Wilson's behavior is relevant

When a crime is committed and we are trying
to figure out who did it, one important issue
is why. If we don't have a why then that's
a pretty good clue we don't understand what's
going on.

The Washington Post speculates that two people
within the White House in a systematic campaign
revealed that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA
in order to get back at Joseph Wilson.

Now does that make sense?

It sounds pretty strained to me. How does revealing
Plame's status get back at Joseph Wilson?

Now on the other hand it turns out that the White
House has lots of reason to be irritated with
Joseph Wilson.

Most dramatically it turns out he's been lying
about a critical issue of the day.

Joseph Wilson told the CIA that he believed
Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from
Niger.

Quoting George Tenet, CIA director,

"In an effort to inquire about certain reports
involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts,
on their own initiative, asked an individual with
ties to the region to make a visit to see what he
could learn. He reported back to us that one of the
former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was
unaware of any contract being signed between Niger
and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his
tenure in office. The same former official also said
that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and
insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi
delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations"
between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted
the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

Joseph Wilson is the "individual with ties to the region"
referred to above.

See http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/09/we_try_for_a_co.html

Later, Joseph Wilson, in likely various forums, but
most specifically an article to the New York Times, said:

"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and
meeting with dozens of people: current government officials,
former government officials, people associated with the
country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude
that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had
ever taken place."

So where's the lie? The lie is obvious, the lie is in
what he didn't say. In this context not mention that
he was told that Iraq had attempted to by uranium from
Niger is deceitful in the extreme.

And it went further than that. Quote:

"As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase
uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier,
repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from
Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of
my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring
to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts
as I understood them."

Wilson then goes on to suggest that we invaded Iraq under
"false pretenses."

There are number of things apparent from this article. For
one thing Joseph Wilson is a pompous, self-important man who
thinks everything revolves around him.

Look at his reasoning:

a) he assumes that his was the only mission from the U.S.
to Niger trying to figure out what was going on (now if
this is indeed the case, how does Wilson know this?);

b) he assumes that his interviews established the absolute
truth and there is nothing else to be discovered;

c) he implies the british report of iraq efforts to buy
uranium is false (from what omniscient viewpoint he comes
to this conclusion is not revealed);

and

d) he implies that the rationale for U.S. invasion of iraq
hinges on his efforts in Niger and the question of whether
iraq attempted to buy uranium in Niger (a reasoning so
absurd, so self-centered, as to make me want to scream).

(The New York Times article is at
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

And then we learn that he lied, that he actually
reported to the CIA that there was reason to believe
iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger.

So did the White House have reason to be pissed with
Joseph Wilson? Yes, they had abundant reason.

But does this translate to his wife?

Suppose Valerie Plame did have something to do with
Joseph Wilson being sent on this mission. So what?
Even if true it's kind of a small issue.

Something important is missing here.

And how exactly does this damage Joseph Wilson again?

(Another why here is why Joseph Wilson did all this.
I can only speculate but it comes to me sitting here
that this is probably about vanity and maybe money.
Wilson was an important guy in the U.S. government for a
long time, and then he retired. And suddenly relatively
speaking he was a nobody. That must be hard. The article
in the New York Times and other like things give him
fame; it means he matters. And it doesn't hurt that
this all translates into money also.)

The more I look at this, the mor confused I get. Trying to figure it out, came up with some possibilities, which may or may not have any relation to the facts.

1) Wilson and his "covert" wife were not that covert. I have heard it was common knowledge on the cocktail party set that Mrs. Wilson was CIA. It is possible that the sources learned of this fact via gossip, and passed it along, not knowing that it was classified information.

As I understand the law, one has to have access to classified information and expose a spy, in order for it to be a crime.

But here is what I don't get. Why Wilson at all? If he was such a vocal critic of the war, why send him on the chase, let alone his wife? And why did Wilson, if he was sent at the request of the CIA, publish a NYT op-ed on his trip?

Which leads me to scenario #2) The leaker is a Democrat. Bush has nothing to gain and everything to lose by leaking, committing a felony to silence an individual is not a good or effective idea. The only ones who have anything to gain are Democrats, by making the cases they are making now.

I don't know. Think I will wait on the sidelines and watch this one.

Also, by way of Counterrevolutionary, the right job title might be Clandestine Service Collection Management Officer" someone who collects and disseminates information collected by spies and controllers in the field and returns it to Langley, or elsewhere as needed. This would explain the confusion over her "covert" status, and a high percentage of these officers are female, as opposed to actual field spies.

Plame's "covert" status hss to be one of the worst-kept secrets ever. It might be a defense if the leaker is ever put on trial. But politically, Bush can't afford to have that decided anywhere except a trial court now. A worse problem for Bush is that there's a poor chance of ever proving who leaked her status. Journalists have gone to jail before rather than reveal their sources, and there is obviously no way they are going to trace this by starting with who knew the alleged secret.

So Ashcroft ought to appoint some rabid foaming-at-the mouth Bush-hating Democrat as special prosecutor, so that when the investigation comes up dry or gets laughed out of court, it obviously wasn't lack of zeal. Of course, he also should put some real restrictions around the special prosecutor - make it clear that the authorization is only to investigate this ONE alleged CRIME, not any and all allegations about anyone connected with the White House. That's where the Starr investigation turned into a persecution...

" LARRY JOHNSON: I was in the same class with her. I was Larry J. In fact, when I first saw her last name I didn't recognize her until one of other my classmates who's out now called me up and said, hey. To realize this is a terrific woman, she's a woman of great integrity and other people that don't know her were trying to suggest that she is the one that initiated that. That is such nonsense. This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating."

But her husband is about show boating, so why did she recommend him for the job if it is so important to her to be undercover. And again, contrary to PaulB's interplanetary nonsense, if Wilson had merely kept his mouth shut his wife wouldn't have had her name bandied about as a CIA employee. Not that it was a secret:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

What's now got me puzzled is why Larry Johnson identified a woman who's ostensibly about 40 years old as having spent 3 decades undercover in the CIA.

He says she was in his class; if she's 10 years older than I am, it's just barely possible that she was. If so, he simply misspoke earlier; he entered the CIA in 1985.

This thread sets a record for borderline psychotic posts. Let's see.

"Wilson was an unqualified Bush-hating bungler."

Not true, but so what? If his wife is a covert operative it's a crime to name her regardless.

"Just because the CIA says a crime was committed doesn't mean one was."

True, but so what? The CIA has asked DOJ to investigate whether a crime was committed. They think it MAY have happened. But if Plame was not covert then the CIA would not have any reason to ask for an investigation.

"Everyone knew Plame's job."

Says who? Cliff May, an administration stooge. And again, if a few people suspected it, it's still a crime to definitely reveal it.

"It was incompetent and foolish to give Plame a covert CIA job."

Even if true, which I doubt, so what? She had the job, and it was a crime to reveal it.

"Maybe it didn't do any harm."

Wishful thinking. Even if it didn't harm anything Plame worked on, which we don't know, it definitely harmed future operations, by placing operatives under the threat of having their identities revealed for poliical reasons.

"It would be a stupid thing to do."

Yes it would. The jails are full of people who did stupid things without considering the consequences. So are the streets, for that matter.

“"Everyone knew Plame's job."

Says who? Cliff May, an administration stooge. And again, if a few people suspected it, it's still a crime to definitely reveal it.”

You have no right to slander Cliff May. Please be precise---why should anyone consider May to be a scum bag? It is also a ho-hum thing in Washington, DC, to mention that someone is with the “government.” This happens all the time.

“"It was incompetent and foolish to give Plame a covert CIA job."

Even if true, which I doubt, so what? She had the job, and it was a crime to reveal it.”

The evidence indicates that Mrs. Wilson has not been in covert operations since her marriage. Let’s get something straight. A CIA employee who is truly a James Bond type individual would inevitably be removed from clandestine work after their marriage to a high profile diplomatic figure. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

“"It would be a stupid thing to do."

“Yes it would. The jails are full of people who did stupid things without considering the consequences. So are the streets, for that matter.””

Baloney. If this were true---just about every person residing in the Beltway would be getting arrested. Once again, it is a boring and ho-hum matter to refer to someone as an employee of the CIA. Are you willing to have just about every one of our elected officials to be sent to jail?

The bottom line is that your hatred of President Bush makes you incapable of thinking and following a logical argument. This so-called scandal is merely another example of liberal media bias.

"At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

--Joe Wilson

Do I need to say anything else? I don't think so.

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

-- Ambassador Joseph Wilson

David Thomson,

Your response confirms my statement.

I didn't "slander" Cliff May. He has been a consistently strong defender of Bush, to the point of ludicrousness, and I believe he has held important positions in the Republican Party. His attitude to any controversy surrounding Bush is utterly predictable. Perhaps "stooge" is a touch impolite, but I didn't think you were that delicate.

What evidence do you have that she has not been in covert operations since her marriage? Besides your own fantasies of how intelligence agencies are run, I mean. Your claim is tantamount to saying the CIA itself didn't know that she wasn't a covert operative.

And do you really not think the jails are full of people who did stupid things? Is robbing a bank an intelligent way to try to get some money? Is beating someone up because you're angry with him a smart thing to do?

One thing I do know about "logical arguments," David, (not that your arguments fall into that category) is that if the evidence shows they're wrong then they are wrong, no matter how impressive the logic may seem to some.

Cliff May is a partisan Republican who is good friends with several of the people who could very well have been the source of the leak. Nobody else has come forward to confirm that this was "common knowledge." Novak himself doesn't make this claim -- he simply quotes May.

David, you have absolutely no way of knowing her current or former covert status. All we know is that CIA sources have confirmed that Plame was a covert operative. Moreover, if she was recently removed from her covert status, it still does not alter the felony, since those who communicated with her still need to be protected (for a period of five years, I believe).

As for Wilson, since he received word from several reporters that Rove had attacked his wife, what the hell do you think his response should be? "Gee, Mr. Rove, thanks for going after my wife?"

Oh, and David, Novak and Time magazine did not just refer to Plame as "an employee of the CIA," they referred to her as an operative. There is a world of difference, both legal and substantial.

As for the "blame the victim" tactic, I find that to be repugnant. Wilson's mission was not secret, nor was he constrained by legal or moral reasons from talking about it. The focus was on him, not on his wife. His wife was a non-entity until the administration chose to attack her in an attempt to discredit him. Even were this not illegal, it's contemptible.

The "three decades" comment has been widely interpreted to mean that she was an operative in three decades (the 80s, 90s and 2000s), not that she was an operative for three decades.

Great. So it's ok if I put down on my resume, 'three decades of experience...", even if the actual number is only a couple months more than two.

Or, alternatively, it's a lie. That's where my preferences...lie.

Ben wrote: "The more I look at this, the more confused I get."

It's not that confusing. Just do a little more reading. Skip the blogs and go right to the news sources. You'll get a lot less confused.

1) Wilson and his "covert" wife were not that covert. I have heard it was common knowledge on the cocktail party set that Mrs. Wilson was CIA.

To date, there is only one person who has made this claim: Cliff May in an NRO article. Nobody else has confirmed this. As noted above, Cliff May is not exactly a disinterested observer and, in any case, may have been one of the people to whom this was "shopped."

"But here is what I don't get. Why Wilson at all? If he was such a vocal critic of the war, why send him on the chase, let alone his wife?"

A couple of points:

1. His wife was not involved with his trip. She may have suggested him as a good candidate for the trip, but that appears to be the extent of her involvement. If there is information to the contrary, it has not yet surfaced.

2. Wilson was not a vocal anti-war critic at that time, I believe. He had served under the first George Bush, had extensive knowledge of both Iraq and Niger and was well qualified for the assignment.

"And why did Wilson, if he was sent at the request of the CIA, publish a NYT op-ed on his trip?"

The op-ed came well after his trip, when he discovered that the administration was still pushing the "Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger" line. His research, backed by other CIA reports, was that this was false. He was outraged that we were going to war on the basis of false information, so he spoke out. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

At the time he wrote that op-ed, Wilson was clearly opposed to the war; it is not clear that he was so opposed at the time he made his trip and report.

"Which leads me to scenario #2) The leaker is a Democrat."

No. Time magazine, Robert Novak, and the Washington Post have all said that the leakers were "senior administration officials." This is a fairly limited set of people.

David, it doesn't matter whether you think that's a lie or not. There is enough independent corroboration out there that she was, in fact, a covert operative, that you are free to discard that one if you like. It still doesn't alter anything.

In any case, this was not a carefully prepared résumé. It was an interview with a CIA agent who was (justifiably) enraged. Is it really so unbelievable that he might misspeak? Or engage in a bit of hyperbole?

There is enough independent corroboration out there that she was, in fact, a covert operative, that you are free to discard that one if you like.

Well, given that I'm not arguing counter to that, that appears to be a rather senseless point.

Now, the misspeaking and hyperbole bit, that seems to be rampant in this case. Is it any wonder why the facts of the case seem so elusive?

Wilson, I: Rove did it.
Wilson, II: I have no proof that Rove did it.

Johnson: This forty-year-old woman has thirty years experience as a field agent.

Actually, David, the facts are not at all elusive:

Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative.

She was outed to Robert Novak, Time magazine and Andrea Mitchell (at least) as a covert CIA operative. The outing is a felony.

All the news sources to date agree that the outing was done by senior administration officials.

The CIA has objected to this, naturally, and has requested that the DoJ locate and punish those who perpetrated this act.

As for Wilson, his claim is that he was told by reporters that Rove had told them that his wife was fair game. Hence, his anger and his first comments. When pressed on this, he had to admit that he only had this information secondhand and had no proof that Rove was, in fact, the man who outed his wife. Again, no elusivity there.

I've already addressed your other issue above.

If you have any other problems, feel free to ask.

I've already addressed your other issue above.

True, addressed and acknowledged. And acknowledged a second time, here, in case you missed it the first time around.

Ok. So we agree that inaccuracies are being thrown around; apparently we disagree on the point that these inaccuracies are increasing or decreasing the quality of information available. Well, you know, I have to stick to my guns on this one. It's my opinion that when people lie, even in the heat of the moment, it doesn't do anything to bolster the case they're trying to make. Sosume.

If you've got any more questions, feel free to ask.

Patrick Sullivan

Maybe Wilson decided to speak up because more than 300 Americans are dead, and more than 2,000 are gruesomely wounded, because Bush pushed for war by making false statements to the American people. That would upset me. That would cause me to want to speak truth to power. Nobody has ever contended that Wilson violated any laws in writing that op ed piece -- all he did was reveal information that showed that Bush and Cheney and Rice and others stood before the american people and lied. So, personally, I can see why a decent person would "showboat" about that.

When I think about the people who've lost their legs, arms, eyes, or lives to stop a threat that didn't exist -- and which we had no credible reason to think existed -- I get pretty upset about. I think about those guys every day -- more the injured than the dead because there are so many of them. I guess Wilson did too.

But you are right that Wilson ran the risk of Bush committing a feloney as retalation - anyone who knows the President's character should have expected as much -- so I think you are right, Wilson should share the blame for this crime. I'll give you that one.

"...it still does not alter the felony, since those who communicated with her still need to be protected (for a period of five years, I believe)."

Sorry, but you obviously have not read the law pertaining to this matter (please take a look at my earlier post). A conviction can be attained only when one deliberately “outs” a covert intelligence agent to either harm them or damage national security. Nothing less will suffice. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone desired to “out” Mrs. Wilson! As matter of fact, Robert Novak claims the exact opposite. The person who mentioned Mrs. Wilson’s employment status stated it as a casual ho-hum fact. If this is indeed so---there are no grounds for an arrest.

A few hours ago, former Congressman Bob Barr was interviewed on Fox News. He was once a CIA employee. Barr said that even CIA agents now often blab openly concerning their spying activities. It is nothing to go to a Washington insider party and learn about so-and-so being a CIA spook.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Sounds like a bunch of political hacks and lawyers playing word and mind games for political gain and amusement.

He said, but cannot be trusted, she said but cannot be trusted. This person should be believed, but has already be caught backtracking, that person should be believed but has already been caught backtracking.

And ALL of you wonder why the American public is NOT paying any attention to any of you.

“And ALL of you wonder why the American public is NOT paying any attention to any of you.”

You are right on target. The general public is remaining neutral until more evidence suggest that a real crime has taken place. S