Asymmetrical Information

It would make sense for this to get pushed into the weekend news cycle... if Fitzgerald were a politician. But he's not. He doesn't care when it comes out because he's not interested in the political ramifications of it all. That's the sign of a good prosecutor. A prosecutor who tried to bolster his case by dumping his load on Monday in hopes of a big show is one that takes sides and that's not someone who should be handing something as important as this.

kris:

seriously, in what bizarro version of the US is a senior prosecutor not a politician with hopes for higher office (at least in his own mind).

Rudy G., Elliot Spitzer, Bill Lochyer, etc. all show that a prominent prosecutor can springboard into senior political roles.

I never got the sense that Ken Starr or Lawrence Walsh were aiming for higher office. Fitzgerald's a Republican, isn't he? I would assume his opportunities for elective office would be killed by tagging a scandal on the leader of his own party. Democrats will be grateful, but still vote for their own.

Fitzgerald's motivation in holding off any anouncement until Friday may be that he doesn't want to deal with the media feeding frenzy. Reagrdless of whether he is going to indict or not, Fitzgerald is going to be asked a whole lot of questions he probably can't or doesn't want to answer. Making the anouncement on Friday to a bunch of reporters who want to go home may reduce some of the crap he's going to have to deal with.

The thing to keep an eye on is whether sealed indictments are delivered by the end of today or not. Fitzgerald met with the grand jury for about three hours this morning, and with prosecutors for about an hour after that. There's no word on whether the grand jury will reconvene on Friday. He may have sought indictments from the grand jury, or he may have just been wrapping things up. However, if Fitzgerald got indictments today, he'll file them with the court before the end of business today. If not, I think it's unlikely that Fitzgerald will deliver any indictments at all. He could ask for indictments on the last day of the jury's empanelment, but this is unusual. I don't think he's going to ask for an extension. But at this point, I don't think anyone outside of the Fitzgerald and the grand jury knows what's going on, including Mr. Kleiman.

If anyone wants to see what "hope springs eternal" means, take a stroll through the Kos or DU websites. They are as excited as a child on Christmas eve...over at NRO's "Corner" someone coined the term "Fitzmas" to refer to this.

I have a feeling that the Kos/DUmmies will be getting metaphorical coal in their stockings, for the reasons cited by Tom Ault.

One more thing: if Fitzgerald doesn't return any indictments that the Kos/DUmmies are expecting, look for him to be attacked first in the leftblogs, then in the MSM, in a fashion similar to the way Starr was. He won't be "Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald" in headlines at the New Duranty Times anymore, he'll be "REPUBLICAN Prosecutor Fitzgerald" or some variation on that theme.

Who knows what is going to happen. (The proceedings are supposed to be secret after all.) But as someone who has had to safeguard classified information in the past, I will judge harshly anyone who has played fast and loose with such information. If they are guilty, let the heads roll where they may. And if they are not guilty, we can all move on. But regardless of your party, if such violations did occur, we should all be deeply concerned. All government employees--regardless of party affiliation or where they are in the pecking order--should follow the same rules. If Rove, Libby, et al, compromised classified information purely for political gain, they should indeed be prosecuted.

And I am not interested at all in the argument that the information may already have been in the open. If the government still considers it classified, then it is classified. Oddly, such an argument (she wasn't _really_ covert) is the worst sort of relativism that the conservatives like to accuse liberals of. Funny how the arguments can change to suit the needs.

*cough* Sambergler *cough*

First off, Fitzgerald is not affiliated with either party. He's not a Republican. Second,
He is nothing if not thorough. It's highly unusual for a prosecutor to make indictments without first informing the potential parties that they are likely to be indicted, thus giving the individuals involved an opportunity to either plead or otherwise stave off the indictment. The word is both Libby and Rove recieved or will shortly recieve notice of exactly that. The facts of this whole ugly mess are very likely already known. This prosecutor will probably do a good job of connecting all the dots for the average joe. Not good news for your boy in the White House. People will begin to think back on that time in our history when our leaders were telling us that people like Max Cleland were aiding abetting the enemy and if you we're for the war, you were supporting evil dictators. This little episode, concieved by a group of neocon true believers, enabled by a white house press corps too afraid to report the truth, administered by incompetent cronies and political hacks, will finally be seen for what it truly is.
A mistake that has set back U.S. interests in the mideast a decade at least and has enriched and enhanced our true advisaries in the region, Iran and Syria.

Nick Foresta

Nick Foresta? Any relation to Tony Foresta?

CG

An interesting idea -- if the government considers something classified, releasing it should be always be punished. That is certainly not the position that most on the left took with respect to, for example, the Pentagon Papers. For that matter, the referral of the matter to the Justice Department by the CIA was classified but was leaked to the press, apparently in an effort to embarrass the administration. How excited are you to get your hands on that evil-doer and drag him through the muck? And if, through an admirable consistency in the application of principle, you are anxious to hunt down that perp, do you wonder why you’re the only one shouting “Talley Ho”?

In fact, I’m curious why no one seems terribly shocked by a plan hatched at the CIA to thwart the President’s efforts to fulfill his Constitutional obligation to carry out the foreign policy of the United States. This was carried out by deception, the leaking of classified information, and (if we make the short jump to the assumption that Joe Wilson was involved, as his wife certainly seems to have been) serial lying.

So, the CIA was working to undercut the President, and the only outrage we have is for some schmuck who had the temerity to tell the actual, certifiable truth—that the patently inappropriate suggestion that Joe Wilson be sent to Niger was made by his wife, for God’s sake? And we’re hot on someone’s trail because Secret Agent Valerie “Vanity Fair” Plame’s identity could almost, in dim light if you don’t look too closely, be just barely protected by a law issued and enforced by the country whose foreign policy she was involved in attempting to subvert.

So, fine. If Scooter Libby broke the law by blowing the cover of a stateside CIA employee whose cover had already been blown, mete out a punishment that is commensurate with his crime – maybe 3 hours of community service, for example. And then, after the street parties and parades are over, maybe we could spare a little time to wonder who at the CIA is masterminding secret ops against the President.

"And I am not interested at all in the argument that the information may already have been in the open. If the government still considers it classified, then it is classified. Oddly, such an argument (she wasn't _really_ covert) is the worst sort of relativism that the conservatives like to accuse liberals of. Funny how the arguments can change to suit the needs." - Charles Giacometti

Charles, I find the "she wasn't really covert" argument persuasive because it is based on the statute, which requires three things: A person must knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent, the agent must have had an out of the country assignment within the last five years, and the government must have been trying to maintain the agent's covert status. A covert agent's identity is protected not just by classifying it but also by making it available only on a need to know basis. It would be highly unusual for the CIA to share Plame's identity with anyone in the White House if she were covert -- because there would not be a need for anyone in the Administration to know her identity. Thus, someone having possession of her name would have a prima fascia case for believing she was NOT a covert agent. And, since working at the CIA is not, in and of itself, the kind of thing that is classified, the person sharing her name with the media may well have done so without any intent to violate the law.

My take on the matter (which I know you've all been waiting for): The White House asked why in the world the CIA had sent Joe Wilson to Niger. The person answering that question did not know Plame had at one time been a covert agent. Once Novak mentioned Plame in his column, and once Joe Wilson started shrieking about his wife being outed, someone in the CIA thought this a perfect chance to settle some scores by playing gotcha.

Toxic,

Yes, but his posts are his and mine are mine. We disagree as often as we agree.

NF

I live in chicago, so I have I've watched Mr. Fitzgerald with the licsense for bribes scandal. We now have a former gov. at trial for crimes related with his initial investigation. This started with Ricardo Guzman killing 6 people on Nov. 8, 1994, so thats 9 years ago.

This guy is probably the best prosecution attorney in the US. He seems to relish in getting the crime and finding other crimes that were the actual root cause of the crime. He doesn't seem to be very concerned with the media - its just not part of his way of working.

This is not going to end well for the Bushies and even worse, its going to be bad for America.

Oddly, such an argument (she wasn't _really_ covert) is the worst sort of relativism that the conservatives like to accuse liberals of

If person A accuses person B of rape, is it "the worst sort of relativism" to ask whether or not person A had consented to sex?

There's no law against identifying CIA operatives if they are publically known to work for the CIA.

Charles, I find the "she wasn't really covert" argument persuasive because it is based on the statute, which requires three things: A person must knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent, the agent must have had an out of the country assignment within the last five years, and the government must have been trying to maintain the agent's covert status.

Question – what if any was the date of Valerie Plame’s last out of country assignment prior to her name being given in the Novak column? My understanding is that she was stationed in New York for the seven years preceding the column* which if true would mean that at least one of the three elements were not met.

* If anyone has information to the contrary which contradicts this, please let me know.

as an earlier poster mentioned, notwithstanding the merits of the case, what really intrigues' scares me is the implication of the CIA ( for chrissake the CIA not the HUD or the social security administration, actively conspiring to undermine the elected presidency.

all you lefties out there, if you do not find this profoundly disturbing, even from your left wing partisan perspective ( and i should know - i was very left myself in my youth), you have allowed partisanship to get in the way of why you were a left winger to begin with.

The last time we had a ROGUE agency ( and let us not mince words here, if a national security agency of the govt. is actively conspiring to undermine the constitutional prerogatives of an elected president- it is a rogue agency)weild this kind of extra constitutional power -or try to wield it was in the era of J edgar hoover. Is that what the lefties want to go back to?

The MSM has been jumping up and down about Rove, Libby, and Cheney, mostly 'cause they hate them. But what if they are looking in the wrong direction? So far, the only people directly implicated in all this have been journalists, the guy from Time Magazine and Judith Miller of the NYT. What are the odds that any indictments will be of other journalists such as Tim Russert? Or of CIA people? Or even Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV?

It would be highly unusual for the CIA to share Plame's identity with anyone in the White House if she were covert -- because there would not be a need for anyone in the Administration to know her identity.

See, this doesn't make sense to me at all. The CIA is an executive branch agency. The head of the CIA is named by the President, and he and his employees all work for the President. I can't imagine that any information, much less the security level of one individual, would be considered too important for the President to know or too inappropriate to give him.

If someone at the President's office said "give us all the information you have about Joe Wilson, it's important" the CIA has the obligation to tell them what they know. It would be unusually dishonest and belligerent of them to decide on their own not to share some piece of information with their boss.

If someone at the President's office said "give us all the information you have about Joe Wilson, it's important" the CIA has the obligation to tell them what they know

This is a moot point, because there was a legitimate reason for the CIA to supply the information to the White House: Wilson's appointment to head the inquiry made no sense unless you knew that his wife worked for the CIA and recommended him. He had no qualifications or experience in the area, after all. If someone at the White House wanted to know why some loser ex-diplomat was playing I Spy in Niger, how else was the CIA supposed to cover its ass except by spilling the beans?

This is the perfect story for the blogosphere. Nobody knows anything, so nobody needs to feel any inhibition in putting forth their fevered hopes as well-reasoned analysis.

"He had no qualifications or experience in the area, after all."

Joseph C. Wilson was ambassador to two African nations under President George H.W. Bush. Previously, over a 30-year diplomatic career, he had been stationed in ten African nations, including Niger. He is fluent in French, which is the language of business and diplomacy in Niger. He was Special Assistant to the President and helped direct Africa policy for the NSC under President Clinton. He has many business and dipolmatic contacts in France. (French mining companies own and operate the uranium mines in Niger.) He served in the US Embassy in Baghdad before the invasion of Kuwait, where he met with Saddam Hussein. During "Desert Shield," as Charge d'Affaires, he was responsible for the release of several hundred American hostages and the evacuation of several thousand foreigners from Iraq. He was the last official American to leave Baghdad before the first Gulf War.

There was no single American diplomat of Ambassadorial rank, other than Wilson, who had the combined experience of Africa, Iraq, and France, and the prestige to open doors, that were necessary for the Niger visit

'There was no single American diplomat of Ambassadorial rank, other than Wilson, who had the combined experience of Africa, Iraq, and France, and the prestige to open doors, that were necessary for the Niger visit'

Nonsense there are probably a couple of hundred people who could have done as well or better than Wilson.
You Moonbats just love to throw out these "facts" that have no basis in any reality.

Wilson is a proven liar, as it seems, most on the left are.

thedaddy

From Wikipedia:

>>>"Brewster Jennings & Associates was a front company set up by the CIA for Valerie Plame, who was allegedly uncovered as political retaliation...
...Plame's status was revealed by Robert Novak (based on leaked information) in a 2003 column. In an interview on CNN, he said "Wilson's wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates. There is no such firm, I'm convinced." It later turned out that BJ&A did exist for all intents and purposes, listed on the Dun & Bradstreet database of company names.

Since NOCs (CIA agents under nonofficial cover) usually work at companies set up by the CIA itself as fronts, it has been speculated that other employees of BJ&A may also have been NOCs, doing work similar to Plame. If that were true, the damage done by leaking Plame's name would be vastly multiplied, as all the other NOCs would be compromised."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q28m89mqFeMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_%26_Associates+Novak,,+%22Brewster+Jennings%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And what was the purpose of this CIA front company Brewster Jennings?

>>>"Intended to infiltrate ties between groups involved in smuggling nuclear weapons, it was apparently named after the late Brewster Jennings, who served as president of a predecessor company to Exxon Mobil Corporation."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q28m89mqFeMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_%26_Associates+Novak,,+%22Brewster+Jennings%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Whether you LIKE Joe Wilson or not...whether you think Valerie Plame was a secret agent or not, it is UNDENIABLE that Robert Novak blew the cover on a CIA front company operation SPECIFICALLY DEALING with the proliferation of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, specifically NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

I defy any flag-waving, jingoistic, "fight them over there instead of over here" type to defend that action, and claim the leaking of this classified information wasn't a national security risk.

--Cobra

Cobra -- The question is not whether the leak harmed the national interest or not. The law, and I'd argue fairness, demands that the person KNOW that they are leaking the identity of a covert agent. If Rove (or whomever) did not know Plame were a covert agent, then the leak may have had lot's of ill effects, but it was not against the law nor was it immoral.

And, just to forestall the predictable claim that the leak shows careless disregard of confidential information -- NOT IF THE PERSON DID NOT KNOW PLAME WAS COVERT. (Sorry for screaming, but this stuff is maddening.) Most of the CIA's employees are NOT covert. It would not be a crime to suggest, "Smith's husband is a high level executive at Superlative Motors" as an explanation for how Smith's ad agency got the Superlative Motors contract. Nor, as a rule, is it a violation of law or ethics to accurately describe someone as an employee of the CIA. Nothing in the record indicates the Administration had any reason to suppose Plame was covert. There are lot's of things indicating that Plame was just an ordinary desk jockey. There may have been carelessness that lead to the leak. If so, it's likely that it was carelessness on the part of the CIA employee who told the Administration that Plame had recommended her husband for the Niger job. Evidently he or she forgot to check on Plame's status (or failed to notify the Administration of her status).

Joseph C. Wilson was ambassador to two African nations under President George H.W. Bush

Yes, that's nice, but he wasn't being sent to Niger to have a tea party. He was being sent to investigate rumors that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from there -- despite knowing nothing about WMD, Iraq, the international trade in uranium and weapons technology, or indeed anything that would have allowed him to do more than simply ask other diplomats "so, is it true?" and then accept their response at face value. The CIA presumably -- one would hope -- has people who speak French AND actually know something about covert nuclear programs. Those people didn't get sent because Plame's hubby needed work, and she had the connections to get it for him.

David Walser writes:

>>>" The question is not whether the leak harmed the national interest or not. The law, and I'd argue fairness, demands that the person KNOW that they are leaking the identity of a covert agent. If Rove (or whomever) did not know Plame were a covert agent, then the leak may have had lot's of ill effects, but it was not against the law nor was it immoral."

It absolutely IS the question at hand. It depends on your priorities. If you feel that defending America comes AFTER defending Bush Administration officials, then you have joined the right winged media flacks.

Destroying an operation designed to prevent the very same weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration based this pre-emptive war upon is probably the most outrageous political irony in the past 50 years.

--Cobra

http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues36.html

Cobra-- you are just too stupid to get it--and you are too bitter about what you see as your lot in life to make anything like intelligent comments about the passing scene.

I will henceforth completely ignore anything you post about anything, because It will have been filtered through your "hair trigger" thoughts and be invalid.

thedaddy

It is my understanding that Ms. Plame was pulled from her overseas assignment because her cover was blown. According to news accounts she was outted twice, in fact. So the CIA attached a completely compromised agent to a cover company chock full of secret agent types? And now that her cover has been blown for the third time, all of the people who work for the same company have been endangered? But they weren't in danger from working with someone whose cover had been blown twice already? Third time's a charm, I suppose.

And her Bush-hating husband is given an assignment to snoop around in Niger (an assignment for which, other than his unique ability to speak French and affinity for mint tea, he was completely unqualified), doesn't sign any sort of confidentiality agreement with the CIA, and then writes up his fantasy version of the events for the New York Times and tells whoppers about it to any reporter who will answer his calls. And all of those secret operatives working side-by-side with long-past-secret agent Plame/Wilson are suddenly at risk for their lives because someone asks “Who’s responsible for sending that schlub to Niger, for God’s sake!”, and actually gets an answer?

And where the CIA employee manual for super spies, I wonder, does it say that you’re safe if you’ve only been outted twice, and on the third blown cover you may pose for a photo spread in Vanity Fair?

Something doesn't line up here, logic-wise.

Lawyers are just scum. Lawrence Walsh worked for years and burned thru $72 million of public money on Iran-Contra and prosecuted nobody. He was just lining his own pockets. It's another case of perverse incentives. The whole concept of the special prosecutor is constructed wrong and should be abolished.

It isn't a matter of whether they're "scum" or not, it's that they are unconstitutional. You cannot have Special Prosecutors who are unaccountable to the Executive Branch, and for very good reason. If you want to know what life is like in an undemocratic country, just look at the way that the people pursued by these prosecutors--Republican or Democrat--have suffered.

It's similar to the Wilson case. Why is a contract CIA agent (which is the role in which he served) writing political opinion columns in a newspaper about the matters the CIA hired him for, particularly when he is being speculative, misleading, and even dishonest about them? Think about it for a minute: He is using his CIA employment as the authority for his political acitvities.

Imagine, say, it was 1954 and a retired Pentagon offical and McCarthy supporter had been hired by the FBI (with the support of his FBI employee wife) to investigate communist subversion and had written the same sort of opinion piece in the NYT? Would he be championed by the Democrats as strongly as WIlson?

If nothing else, why have the Democrats not learned from the way that the second Clinton administration (and Al Gore's 2000 campaign) was destroyed by irresponsible journalism and unaccountable Special Prosecutors how disastrous these phenomena are?

After all, if the perjury indictments do come down, the biggest loser is not going to be Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al.It's going to be the Democrats, and not in any abstract way either.

Biggest of all will be that Hillary is finished. The perjuries she committed in her testimonies (most prominently in the Travel Office case, but in other cases as well) are extremely well-documented and vastly exceeds anything that happened here, even worst-case scenario. And what about all the big Democrat politicos that were so dismissive of her crime?

I know, I know--ancient history, right? Uh, one word:

Swifites.

And remember, this didn't take place in a jungle with a few witnesses--It's on the public record for all to see.

Imagine the books lovingly detailing the activites HC and her supporters--Imagine the rage of the Republicans--Imagine all those people who are "moderates" hearing about this stuff for the first time thinking, "They sent Libby to jail for what? While Hillary and Bill did that!"

People ignored the stuff at the time, because it was poorly reported and had little relevance totheir lives, but if Fitzgerald indicts Libby, Rove, etc., the last thing anybody is going to want is a repeat of this mess in the next presidency.

"Those people didn't get sent because Plame's hubby needed work, and she had the connections to get it for him."

Wilson is a retired ambassador with decades of diplomatic corps service. That means he has a hefty pension. He works as a consultant, for sizable fees. He didn't "need work." He undertook the Niger trip for no pay. And don't call it a boondoggle. A free trip to a landlocked, impoverished and corrupt African backwater? Please.

As for no credentials:
Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998...

Ambassador Wilson was the Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces, Europe, 1995-1997. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe from 1992 to 1995. From 1998 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad, Iraq as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy...

Anyone who says that there were "hundreds" of people better suited than Wilson for the Niger trip is under the obligation to name one. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that Wilson was eminently qualified for the job and those who say he wasn't are just mouthing the talking points.

The problem isn't that Wilson was not qualified to do an investigation, but that he was a partisan liar. He went there, he talked to people who had met with Iraqis seeking to buy uranium ore, and he came home and claimed that he'd found no evidence of Iraq trying to buy uranium ore.

JR - Your recitation of Wilson's background suggests to me that he might have been qualified for the job of Ambassador to Ivory Coast, but not that he had any qualifications for an intelligence mission to anywhere. That he apparently misinterpreted what little information he gathered, couldn't keep his facts straight (I'm being charitable here) when telling reporters what he had done, and blabbed about the entire episode to anyone who would listen is pretty conclusive evidence of his incompetence.

I am also pretty sick of the "Wilson" lied trope. I have seen it quite a few times and remarkably it's never backed up with a single example of a lie. I would really appreciate knowing where he lied. If someone could point that out that would be great. I am not really certain what he lied about - we know know the Niger documents where fakes. Exactly what did Joe Wilson lie about? How is this relevant? As far as the post that said that Valerie Plame had been outed twice before - evidence please. The CIA wouldn't have referred the matter to the DOJ if they felt the law hadn't been broken. The CIA determines NOC status, not political pundits.

JR - Your knowledge of intelligence smacks of someone who gets his knowledge from watching "Alias" . Needless to say "Alias" isn't close to reality. Diplomatic people are used for this sort information gathering all the time. In fact Joe Wilson had previously done work like this before. Please back up claim that he screwed up the facts. Even if he did - outing his wife, destroying Brewster Jennings is a pretty strange response to it. Why not simply say, he is a partisan hack? My understanding that the damage assessment is pretty severe in this case.

jl sputters:

I’m curious why no one seems terribly shocked by a plan hatched at the CIA to thwart the President’s efforts to fulfill his Constitutional obligation to carry out the foreign policy of the United States.

Them nasty so-and-so's at the CIA! Trying to find out the facts on the matter, instead of just giving the answer that the President wanted. That's practically treason.

I want to apologize if I sound pretty angry about the Plame thing. I tend to take secrecy and intelligence work pretty seriously and I view this as pretty damaging. I wanted to highlight a couple things.

1.Human intel (Humint in industry terms) is difficult to come by. It takes years of work, building a network of contacts both formal and informal to create a network. For years we have let our humint resources crumble as we relied on imint and sigint. This was alright during the Cold War when we were facing a centralized technological enemy in the Soviet Union. Now we face difuse networks of contacts in terrorism and weapons trade. Remember AQ Kahn's network of missile technology and nuclear materials?

2. We are supposed to be on war footing. We should all be biting our tongues, thinking,"How would our enemies use this information?" Clearly at the very best Libby & Rove were sloppy with secret information. I have never thought they were going to get persecuted under the Intelligence Identities Act. The statute is very narrowly drawn and they almost certainly didn't violate it. The Esponaige Act is another matter however, that's a much easier case to make. For me being sloppy with information during war would be a firing offense. Imagine this happened during WWII - What would have been the response?

3. Disclosures like this make building your Humint network much harder as your sources are going to be hesitant to come forward? Why? Because exposing the NOC in your country usually means exposure for them in theirs. People seem to have forgotten that in total totalitarian regimes, contact with Westerners is closely monitored. This was my experience in the Soviet Union in the 80s - the KGB kept close contact on Westerners visiting their fine country. Unless you really have been to such a place it's hard to imagine it.

That said I not certain how Travelgate is going to hurt Hillary. She's the junior senator from NY, it didn't hurt her there did it? No one is really going remember it. If a Swiftie approach is taken (I guess be fast and loose with the facts and hope the smear sticks) it will play right into her hands with the "Right wing attack machine."

The Swiftie approach worked with Kerry because years in the Senate made him a incredible indecisive wuss. I bet if you flipped a coin and asked Kerry to call it, he would want to wait to see it land first. He's a classic fence sitter.

Hillary has a clearer set of values and isn't nearly as liberal as good old John from Mass.

Brian,

It's obvious that they've just circled the wagons around this administration. Your excellent points are hilighted by the President's own words:

>>>"On September the 11th, 2001, America and the world witnessed a new kind of war. We saw the great harm that a stateless network could inflict upon our country, killers armed with box cutters, mace, and 19 airline tickets. Those attacks also raised the prospect of even worse dangers -- of other weapons in the hands of other men. The greatest threat before humanity today is the possibility of secret and sudden attack with chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons.

In the past, enemies of America required massed armies, and great navies, powerful air forces to put our nation, our people, our friends and allies at risk. In the Cold War, Americans lived under the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but believed that deterrents made those weapons a last resort. What has changed in the 21st century is that, in the hands of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction would be a first resort -- the preferred means to further their ideology of suicide and random murder. These terrible weapons are becoming easier to acquire, build, hide, and transport. Armed with a single vial of a biological agent or a single nuclear weapon, small groups of fanatics, or failing states, could gain the power to threaten great nations, threaten the world peace.

America, and the entire civilized world, will face this threat for decades to come. We must confront the danger with open eyes, and unbending purpose. I have made clear to all the policy of this nation: America will not permit terrorists and dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most deadly weapons."

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 11, 2004

President Announces New Measures to Counter the Threat of WMD
Remarks by the President on Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
Fort Lesley J. McNair - National Defense University
Washington, D.C.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040211-4.html

Now, exactly what part of the President's speech would EXCUSE the outing of a CIA operative working on PREVENTING the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states? What part of the President's speech would CONDONE the dissolution of Brewster Jennings, the front company the CIA operative worked for?

Defenders of these activities under this investigation better have some FAR better answers to these questions than what has been presented on this blog thread.

--Cobra

DeSpain, did Joe Wilson lie? Have you read anything besides the NY Times lately?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp

JL and Markm- you guys are wandering way off topic. Wilson's credentials are important because they show that the line that he was a ne'er-do-well husband who needed his wife to get him a job is just horseshit. That was the line that the administration was peddling and is still peddling. That was the motivation for leaking Plame's name. And it's horseshit. Doesn't matter if he did a good job or a bad job. The administration wasn't attacking him by saying he did a bad job. They attacked him by saying, he's an idiot, his wife got him the job. Which would have been just obnoxious, if hadn't also been a felony.

JR,

I actually think you’re changing the topic. Joe Wilson was a very odd choice for the job, a judgment that has been borne out by his behavior after the fact and certified by the findings of the 9-11 Commission. Naturally, people wanted to know how he was selected to go on this mission and whether what he indicated in his New York Times commentary and in his background comments to the press was true. It was discovered that his wife put him up for the job, not the Vice President’s office as he apparently told to reporters. It was, you’ll recall, the relaying of that information to the media that has given rise to the special prosecutor. So his lack of qualifications for the job is certainly germane.

I am unaware of anyone in the administration peddling the line that he was a “ne'er-do-well husband who needed his wife to get him a job”, but I’m sure you’d be willing to provide citations. I look forward to reading them.

Michigander,

Of course I have no problem with the CIA attempting find out the truth. If they had tried a little harder or done a little better, we might have avoided this entire imbroglio. The thing that concerns me, and ought to concern you as well, is the internecine warfare going on between the CIA and the administration.

JL - Joe Wilson never never said that the Vice President sent him. He said the office of the vice president want more information on this Niger yellow cake stuff and tasked the CIA to get it. As far as the special prosecutor - Patrick Fitzgerald isn't a special prosecutor - that statute has elapsed. He's a federal prosecutor. And Joe Wilson's claim didn't start the "special prosecutor," it was the referral from the CIA to the DOJ about the outing of Valerie Plame.

I read the Weekly Standard article. It's not bad except of course for one little thing. They base the entire article on the addendum to the Senate Intelligence report added by the Republican chair and then they imply that both Democrats & Republicans signed onto the addendum. (The Democrats didn't.)

It doesn't paint Joe Wilson in a good light but this is completely irrelevant. I don't care if everything that Joe Wilson says is a lie. This still doesn't excuse outing his wife and destroying a CIA front company. Please explain how outing his wife was justified.

I'd like to believe these are non-trivial times.

Anything less than indictments for the underlying alleged crime (the outing of a covert intelligence official) that motivated the appointment of a special prosecutor is an exercise in triviality.

They attacked him by saying, he's an idiot, his wife got him the job. Which would have been just obnoxious, if hadn't also been a felony.

Guess it wasn't a felony after all, eh? The indictments are out, and no charges were brought for "outing" Plame -- just for lying to the investigation. Those charges are as serious as the ones brought against Bill Clinton (perjury) and Martha Stewart (lying to investigators about something that wasn't itself a crime).

Make of that what you will.

Brian

First, I didn’t say that Wilson claimed Vice President sent him. Of course we don’t know what he said to reporters. There have been suggestions he told reporters that the Office of the Vice President was responsible for his having been sent. Regardless, the first question that came into my mind when the op-ed piece came out—and I can’t believe I was alone on this—was who, exactly, was responsible for Joe Wilson’s having been sent? As I said, it was an odd choice.

Secondly, I didn’t suggest that Wilson’s claim started anything. I wrote that the outing of Valerie Plame led to the investigation. Are you disagreeing with that?

Furthermore, referrals from the CIA to the DOJ are apparently pretty routine. They are designed to follow each suspected leak of classified information. The referral itself involves no judgment on the part of the CIA regarding whether a law has been broken. That determination is the job of the DOJ. So, as an aside, we should really stop suggesting that the White House must be guilty or the CIA wouldn’t have made a referral to the DOJ. Unless you are willing to accept that Rodney King must have had it coming or the police wouldn’t have beaten him up.

Instead of saying that Plame’s outing was the proximate cause of the special prosecutor (which is the title by which he is being referred by MSNBC, even as I type), I might have suggested that the leak of the classified referral to the media, apparently by someone in the CIA, was the proximate cause. Perhaps a necessary but not sufficient condition? And I eagerly await the investigation and arrest of that leaker.

Finally, I’m still awaiting those citations to support your accusation that the administration was peddling the “ne'er-do-well husband who needed his wife to get him a job” line. I’m thirsty for knowledge!

"The Swiftie approach worked with Kerry because years in the Senate made him a incredible indecisive wuss. I bet if you flipped a coin and asked Kerry to call it, he would want to wait to see it land first. He's a classic fence sitter.

"Hillary has a clearer set of values and isn't nearly as liberal as good old John from Mass."

Uh, no...John Kerry got killed on the Swifties because he made it an issue. Did you not see the Democratic convention? After all, JK's post-VN War activities were infinitely more alienating to those susceptible to the Swiftie approach, but they never aroused any resonant or evocative response. The VN War stuff was just about exaggeration, but when JK made it the centerpiece of campaign, he was dead.

If the Dems make perjury their criterion for scandal, which they have, then that is what people will mesure them by, just as JK made his VN service the criterion for proof that he could be trusted with national security.

If Scooter gets "flipped", with immunity, in lieu of the fact that Fitzgerald's case against him for perjury and obstruction of justice is apparently rock solid, then be prepared for a long hot summer of Courtroom testimony, possibly from the Vice President himself on down...under oath.
Scooter faces a maximum of 30 years.

Triviality? Come on, folks.

--Cobra

Well I just watched the press conference with Patrick Fitzgerald, who has come off as a pretty straight arrow. A few things came out of the press conference.

1. It's quite clear that Valerie Plame's neighbors didn't know she worked at the CIA. This has been a repeated trope we have heard time and time again, "Her neighbors knew so she wasn't covert." Fitzpatcick clearly states this wasn't wide knowledge. The fact that she worked at the CIA was indeed classified information and leaking it was a crime. Fitzpatrick declined to comment whether she was covert or not.

2. Fitzgerald made a good point. When people obstruct justice or in the case of the indictment of Scooter, repeatedly lie to grand jury, it becomes difficult if not impossible to prosecute under the charge that everyone seems to think the prosecutor should be using. I have seen several posts here denigrating the charges because they weren't basis for the original investigation. Fitzgerald made the point that when investigating a missing money from a bank that you think it is wire fraud and it turns out to be embezzlement, you go ahead and prosecute on the case on embezzlement. You don't throw up your hands and say well "It's not wire fraud."

3. Since Scooter obstructed the investigation (or at least allegedly according to the indictment) prosecuting under the original crime harder. Perhaps the threat of federal prison will encourage Libby to give us more information.

JL - No where in my posts did I say the White House was guilty. I said at best that Rove, and Libby were sloppy with secret information. (As a reminder the prosecutor clearly stated that Valerie Plame's employment by the CIA was classified information). So they were sloppy with classified information, passing it to people (reporters) not authorized to receive it. That's a crime. Whether it's prosecutable, that's another matter. Also you should be expecting those quotes from JR, not me - follow the posts up, he's the one talking about the Wilson needs a job from his wife trope and the talking points of the administration. I would dig them up but I am much lazier than JR.

I have yet to hear a single reason why Joe Wilson's wife needed to be brought into the discussion. You don't need it to repudiate Joe's points - why not let the facts do their job.

As the prosecutor made the point today, Joe Wilson's allegations and the larger debate about the war simply are not relevant here. If Joe Wilson said that the president eats babies for lunch and worships Satan why would you need to mention his wife to rebute his points? If you know she works at the CIA, wouldn't you check her status first. Remember Carl Rove called her fair game? I think it's out of bounds.

BTW we may see more indictments depending on what happens with Scooter. I do think this particular bit of nastiness is nearly done.

I agree with you partly Jeff Z - making your Vietname service your centerpiece was a cluster fuck of a move. The Swifties attacked before the convention though and Kerry did nothing in response. He should have released his records (which he didn't) contained therein were two of the Swifties praising his performance in vietnam.

That decision indicated to me that John Kerry cannot make a decision and stick with it. He has horrible executive instincts. I would say that Bush has been a better president than Kerry would have been.

If Joe Wilson said that the president eats babies for lunch and worships Satan why would you need to mention his wife to rebute his points?

Because his wife had gotten him the job -- which he was otherwise unqualified for, and proceeded to bungle -- and Wilson then lied and said that wasn't the case.

"Anything less than indictments for the underlying alleged crime (the outing of a covert intelligence official) that motivated the appointment of a special prosecutor is an exercise in triviality."

You are badly mistaken. The fact that no indictment for the outing of Plame came today could just as easily be ascribed to Libby's obstruction of the investigators' ability to collect the necessary evidence to secure said indictment, as it could to there being no prosecutable crime in the first place.

We simply don't know which of those two possibilities is the real situation. Hopefully this will come out in a trial of Libby and any further investigation into the leaks.

Libby may get thirty years for supposedly lying to a grand jury about something that wasn't a crime. President Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for lying under oath to a grand jury for something that was not a crime. Anyone else see something odd about all of this?

yes Hammer - perjury is always a bad idea.

hammer:

Libby in his trial, like Clinton at his impeachment, may well be found not guilty and thus get off.

Also, if Libby does get prison time where Clinton didn't, it would only be as odd as me getting pulled over for speeding when other drivers are getting away with going even faster.

Which is to say, not odd at all.

Dan writes:

>>>"Because his wife had gotten him the job -- which he was otherwise unqualified for, and proceeded to bungle -- and Wilson then lied and said that wasn't the case."

And what evidence do you have of this? Can you point me to the testimony by CIA Officials? And documentation you can link to?

--Cobra

"Anything less than indictments for the underlying alleged crime (the outing of a covert intelligence official) that motivated the appointment of a special prosecutor is an exercise in triviality"

So, basically, we should allow suspects and witnesses to lie, destroy documents, and obstruct justice etc, since those actions often prevent the filing of teh substantive charge. Without substantial penalties for interfering with an investigation, there' no point in even having prosecutors or in fact, any laws at all.

Dan - How does outing a CIA agent whose status with the Agency was classified and destroying a CIA front company refute Joe Wilson's arguments? Oh that's right it doesn't. That fact that Valerie through his name in there doesn't change anything really. As Fitzgerald said today, the whole discussion about the war really isn't relevant to these changes. Joe Wilson had done this type of work before on at least one other occasion and no he wasn't really unqualified for it.

Here's a hint guys. Spycraft is nothing like Alias. People don't get dropped in a country, wear disguise and gather information, trying to fool people about who they are. While that has certainly has happened, most of the time spycraft is insanely boring. Jow Wilson had a network of contacts where he could discreetly ask around and see if anything popped up. This is how humint is gathered. Having a long history with the country speaking the language are all important to gather information. Without some form of contacts, exactly how do you propose to gather intelligence? I keep hearing Joe Wilson was unqualified without saying what qualifications he was lacking. And no saying he's not a super duper James Bond spy isn't enough. He actually uniquely qualified to gather this information. He undoubtedly not qualified to provide any sort of analysis of that information. Why? Because Joe Wilson's humint is only one part of the intelligence puzzle. To do an analysis you need the whole picture.

Please tell me again why destroying Brewster Jennings was a good idea.

Here's some pretty telling information -:>
Go to page 5 of the indictment. Top of the page, item #9.

"On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from.

Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.

Also from the indictment:
"The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret. As a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence gathering methods and operations and endanger the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them."

The CIA group in charge of monitoring WMD hires a contract employee with the recommendation of his CIA WMD-monitoring wife whose identity must be kept a secret. Said contract employee (and I don't care about his salary status---if you go on a mission for the CIA, you are working for them) whose wife's identity must be kept top secret proceeds to write an article in the NYT accusing the President of lying about WMDs, and later blames the President's aides for publicizing his wife's name.

In Woodward's book, if you'll recall, he reports that Bush asked the CIA Director if he was absolutely sure that there were WMDs in Iraq. "A slam dunk," the Director replied. For some reason, though, blame has somehow shifted from the CIA unit responsible for the mistaken WMD assessment, among whose ranks were V. Plame, to the President who demanded reassurance.

The CIA has finally gone too far. Bush may yet prove to be unable, but the next generation won't. For too many years, this sinister, murderous, incompetent, and corrupt cesspool has squandered billions and billions of dollars and yet still managed to remain oblivious to every major foreign development unitl the day it occured since the Korean War, excelling at nothing except providing Ivy League incompetents with free foreign travel and fat pensions.

The time has come.

Yes, it's a fact that the CIA is run by idiots.

I don't know if we'll ever wise up enough to put these bozos out to pasture, but you can count on the fact they'll continue to be totally useless. They didn't know about 911, didn't know that Saddam lacked WMD, and didn't know about the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can find out more from a daily newspaper than you can from the CIA.

No offense Jeff but the CIA made me invade Iraq is kinda silly. I think invading Iraq because of WMD was the not a great idea anyway.

As you recall in former Treasury Secretary Snow's book "The Price of Loyalty" the invasion of Iraq was discussed before 9/11.

Porter Goss (Bush's man) is now in charge of reforming the CIA. When he screws it up even further, who will you blame? Probably not Porter Goss.

Once again how does destroying intelligence assets make us secure again? President Bush could have used 9/11 as a mandate for reforming intelligence. Did he? No but we got the Department of Homeland Clusterfucks staffed by third level cronies (1D4+4 total hit points).

Here's another hint. Destroying intelligence assets is probably not going to help your intelligence gathering or make it more accurate.

Valerie Plame is responsible for the poor intelligence on Iraqi WMD? Nope - she was in proliferation. She certainly wasn't involved with Iraq.

You know what I hear on this thread? A bunch of arm chair idiots who don't know the first fucking thing about intelligence making claims about it. I suggest you guys hit the books and learn a bit more before commenting. Let's hear your plan for reforming intelligence. Instead we get platitudes like "The time has come." The time has come for what exactly? If George Tenet is so fucking incompetent why did he receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Shouldn't the president hold someone responsible? He doesn't he rewards loyalty, not performance. That's why Paul "I disbanded the Iraqi Army and started the Iraqi insurgency" Bremer also got the Medal of Freedom. Doesn't the President bear any responsibility for his own actions or choices?

Jeff are suggesting that some one else is responsible for leaking Valerie Plame's name? I notice you say "Later blames the presidents aides". Exactly what are you suggesting here? Well one of those aides was just indicted for lying about what he said. He was indicted for obstructing the investigation into that leak.

The current administration appears incapable of admitting a single mistake in 5 years. If you don't make mistakes, it's awefully hard to learn from them.

BTW I have yet to hear an argument why it was necessary to out Valerie Plame and destroy Brewster Jennings.

Brian, agreed. In hindsight (which should have been foresight), the Iraqi WMD threat was laughable, and irregardless of the (false) assertion that Saddam was trying to buy Niger yellowcake to enrich via (useless) aluminum tubes and then somehow deploy using (non-existent) drone planes within 45 minutes (1 million years?) ...

No, the threat was stupid not because Saddam might have wanted to have WMDs (which he surely did), but because of the major WMD threats throughout the world (incl. Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran and the undersecured stockpiles in former Soviet states) Iraq's posed the LEAST pressing threat to the U.S. or anyone else.

Because failed, cornered states without the beginnings of a nuclear program and living in the spotlight of constant UN-UK-US scrutiny just really aren't likely to suddenly materialize a nuke.

Which everybody should have figured out if they'd stopped to think about it for two minutes in the runup to the invasion, instead of looking for "appeasers" under every stone to blame for future "mushroom clouds".

Meanwhile, Iranian nuclear ambitions proceed apace as the mullahs plot to create a Shi'ite-dominated vassal buffer state on their western frontier, our "ally" Pakistan unleashes A.Q. Khan on the world, and for all we know, in Pyongyang, Dear Leader has his 20 or so nukes in a randomly-rotating Russian roulette chamber aimed at Tokyo or Seoul.

The issue of whether the CIA is any good at intelligence is completely separate from the issue of whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq. My opinion is that the CIA is a useless bureaucracy and also that it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

One legitimate question is whether democracies are capable of fielding an effective humint capability. Democracies care about human rights, and most humint programs violate someone's rights in some fashion. At any rate, the CIA has been ineffective. They've made bad estimates about very important issues such as the strength of the Soviet economy, and the ability of potential enemies of the US to produce WMD. They've allowed foreign agents to penetrate to the heart of classified operations. And they've done many stupid things, including attempting to murder Fidel Castro a dozen times and failing on every try. Anyone who makes a serious study of the agency would fail to be impressed. They have a long string of failures and few, if any, successes.

Shamus part of the problem is the CIA's failures are very public while their successes are by definition not noticed. Their failed attempts at killing Castro occurred forty years ago.

As far as them missing the strength of the Soviet economy, I recall debates between analysts in the early 80s about the coming failure of the Soviet economy. Here's the problem with that intelligence -> You cannot go public with the Soviet economy is nearly kaput. The White House wanted intelligence that would support a massive increase in spending. So they made a choice to play up the Soviet threat in order to get the money from Congress to ultimately finish off the Soviet Union. If Carter had been reelected, the Soviet Union might still be around. How the White House used the intelligence about the Soviet economy seems counter-intuitive but it was the correct thing to do. They knew they were on their last legs, so they decided to play up the menace in order to finish them off.

This sort of manipulation of intelligence happens all the time. Kennedy had his missle gap (which we knew at the time didn't exist or rather those in the know knew).

Democracies can be effective at humint -> I just don't know if American democracy can be. Britain is pretty good at it, but I doubt Americans would put up with the type of restrictions that go along with it. (Official Secrets Act for example)

On a totally seperate note I wanted to mention my favorite intelligence story. It's about the Soviet Union attempting to bluff the US. In the fifties and all through the first half of the sixties the US had a numerical missle advantage. During the SALT negotiations, Americans kept asking about various missile installations throughout Siberia that had ICBMS. They presented our photographic intelligence of these missiles. The Soviet negotiators seemed to hem and haw. Eventually a rather embarrassed Soviet colonel had to tell the party that those were not missiles but wooden replicas of missiles built to deter the US from nuclear attack.

The Soviets had built wooden missles and allowed them to be photographed in order to appear a larger nuclear threat to the US and to deter the US from attacking.

That's why intelligence work is so difficult. You have someone actively working against you to mislead and throw you off the scent. To cite the failures of the CIA, means you miss their successes. If the CIA does their job, you shouldn't hear anything about it. We haven't been attacked by Islamic terrorists in the last four years. I am going to count that a success.

size genetics

Comments are Closed.