Steal This Headline!

The last month's excitement in the Plame investigation has left all sorts of Loose Ends and Stories Unpursued.  With a slow news month looming before us, enterprising journalists (and bloggers!) might be able to turn some of the following ideas into bylines.  Here we go:

"Russert - "I Told Libby About Plame":  Ok, why would Tim Russert let a rival reporter break this news?  Good question.  Maybe he would like to avoid the awkwardness of outing himself on his own show; maybe no one ever cared enough to ask. (Maybe it's not true - let's find out).

In any case, Russert let NBC release a weaselly denial after he testified to Fitzgerald under circumstances that caught the imagination of Adam Liptak of the Times:

Mr. Russert's testimony last August provides intriguing clues. A statement issued by NBC at the time suggests that Mr. Libby had told Mr. Fitzgerald that he had heard about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Russert.

According to the statement, lawyers for Mr. Russert and Mr. Fitzgerald reached an agreement under which Mr. Fitzgerald questioned Mr. Russert only about Mr. Russert's end of a conversation in early July 2003 with Mr. Libby. That would be an unusual way to go about pursuing a leak inquiry, but it is consistent with an attempt to try to establish that Mr. Russert provided information to Mr. Libby.

Mr. Russert, however, according to the NBC statement, said "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Indeed, the statement said, Mr. Russert first learned the information from Mr. Novak's column.

A spokeswoman for NBC declined to elaborate on the statement yesterday.

"He did not know her name?"  And he didn't call her an operative.  Well, that covers it!

Mr. Russert was virtually speechless two weeks ago when the subject arose on his own show - maybe a reporter could pry a story out of him.

"Joe Wilson Interviewed By Fitzgerald": the case can be made that Joe Wilson has been interviewed by Fitzgerald's investigators.  Well - did the investigators ask about the forgeries that baffled the Senate?  Or, for our friends on the left, was Wilson able to infer any targets of the investigation?

And why do we think that Wilson has chatted with Fitzgerald's people?  Elementary - per the WaPo, Fitzgerald has taken testimony from a fellow mentioned (but not named) in Wilson's book.  Presumably, Fitzgerald would want confirmation of the person's identity and a contemporaneous account from Wilson.  It appears that Wilson spoke to the WaPo for their story, so he is not incommunicado.

And a side note - in the WaPo, it says that "Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said."  And no doubt he did.  But in his book, Wilson quoted Novak as saying "Wilson's an asshole.  The CIA sent him.  His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA.  She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist.  She sent him".

Hmm - "sent" is not as strong as "arranged", especially following the broad "The CIA sent him".  And where is the word "operative", which appeared in Novak's column?

Lots of questions for Mr. Wilson, if anyone cares to ask.

[UPDATE:  In an Aug 4 radio appearance, Wilson says this:

JOSEPH WILSON: I have not spoken to Pat Fitzgerald for almost a year-and-a-half. I was interviewed by him once early in his tenure. My wife was interviewed by him once early in his tenure in a separate interview from mine, and neither of us have spoken to him since. We have not been before the Grand Jury. We're not part of this case. And, of course, he has appropriately not shared with us any information he might have. So anything that I might know would be just pure speculation.

Oh, well.]

While on the subject of Joe Wilson's secret friend, here is another possible headline - "Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN, Cooperated With Fitzgerald's Investigation".  Again, we are guessing, but in Wilson's book, he says that after he learned from his friend that Novak was contemplating a column mentioning his wife, he called Eason Jordan of CNN (Novak's "titular boss") to urge Mr. Jordan to dissuade Novak.  My strong impression is that Special Counsel Fitzgerald is running down every detail, so what did he ask Mr. Jordan, and how would Mr. Jordan characterize his chat with the investigators?

It is similar in theme to the Eason Jordan story, but different versions of this headline might capture attention: [Well Known Reporter] Cooperated With Plame Investigation.  How many reporters have given evidence?  Good question - let's watch the NY Times puzzle with it:

Adam Liptak, July 16:

Four reporters have testified in the investigation: Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

Mr. Liptak notes that Novak's status is not known, and that Judy Miller is in jail for civil contempt.

Anne Kornblut, July 27:

Few if any reporters who traveled with Mr. Fleischer, Mr. Bartlett and the White House entourage that week have been called to testify before the grand jury.

Douglas Jehl, July 28

In addition to Mr. Pincus, the reporters known to have been pursued by the special prosecutor include Mr. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, was the first to identify Ms. Wilson, by her maiden name, Valerie Plame; Mr. Cooper, who testified before a grand jury on the matter earlier this month; Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and who was interviewed by the prosecutor last year; Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic reporter for The Post, who was also interviewed last year, and Judith Miller of The New York Times, who is now in jail for refusing to testify about the matter. It is not known whether Mr. Novak has testified or been interviewed on the matter.

Emphasis added - evidently, the Times has become less certain of this point over the last two weeks.

So, what other reporters might have caught the attention of the Special Counsel?  Per this list from Newsday from March 2004, we see quite a few names that appeared in the White House phone logs.  Now, an entry in the phone logs does not mean a conversation occurred - sometimes it is just a message that the reporter called, but the person at the White House end never calls back.  However, this seems like the sort of detail Fitzgerald would want to verify.  Consequently, all of these reporters should have been contacted by investigators - have they been (or has no one asked?)?

And for what it's worth, rather than trouble us with a list of names which included Kristof, Sanger, and Miller of the Times, here is how the Times covered that revelation last March 2004; the WaPo at least mentioned that "approximately 25 [reporters]... were specified by name".

OK, two more places to look for a story, we are in the home stretch!

Conservative Journalist Confirms Plame Spy ID Was Widely Known:  In the "Trust, but Verify" folder, we see that Cliff May, writing at the National Review Online, told us in Sept 2003 that:

I had been told that [Ms. Plame was a CIA operative] — 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 offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

It may well be that insiders were well aware of her employment at the CIA.  However, almost two years have passed and none of these insiders have come forward to say so.  If Mr. May could amplify or clarify his anecdote, there is no time like the present.

And while on that point, we have yet to see a clear transcript or public citation of Andrea Mitchell making a similar admission in July 2005.

[However, hiding in plain sight at the NBC News blog is Ms. Mitchell writing on July 15:

One of a number of intriguing questions: During that 10-day period in July 2003, how many reporters were circulating information about Wilson's wife to administration officials? More than a few, but clearly some failed to realize how seriously the CIA would take the disclosure of a covert officer's identity. Nor, clearly, did at least two administration officials who were the sources for Novak's column.

"More than a few"?!?  If we count Russert (to Libby), Cooper (to Libby), Novak (to Rove) and Miller (to Libby), is that "more than a few", or does Ms. Mitchell have more reporters in mind?  And by the way, is she a reporter, or a contestant on "20 Questions" - maybe she could clear this puzzle up for her audience *without* our prompting her.]

Finally, "Former CIA Spokesman Documents Warning To Novak":  Bill Harlow, former CIA spokesperson, warned Novak not to publish information about Ms. Plame when Novak checked with the CIA in July 2003.  Ahh, but how forcefully did he warn him, and why did Novak ignore him?

We don't know, but we know this - Wilson claims, again, in his book, that his wife alerted the CIA press office [on July 10] after the secret friend talked with Novak on July 8.

[Mini UPDATE:  Per Wilson's book, on July 8, Wilson asked Eason Jordan to have Novak call him; Novak called Wilson on July 9, and they played phone tag until they finally spoke on July 10.  From Wilson's book:

Novak had still been trolling for sources when we spoke on the telephone, so I assumed that he did not have the confirmations he would need from the CIA to publish the story.  I told Valerie, who alerted the press liason at the CIA, and we were left with the reasonable expectation that any reference to her would be dropped, since he would have no way of confirming the information - unless, of course, he got confirmations from another part of the government, such as the White House.

Or if the CIA press liason confirmed that she worked at the CIA, I guess that could do the trick.  Why Wilson called Eason Jordan right away but waited two days to tell his wife and the CIA press liason is left as a guess for the reader.]

We also know that in a typical bureaucracy, a monumental miscommunication of this magnitude - nationally syndicated columnist ignores CIA press officer and outs covert agent - would have resulted in some internal soul searching, which would have led to memos or minutes with themes of "What Went Wrong" and "How We Will Improve".

We also know that, when the CIA is not comfortable with the cooperation they are getting from a reporter, they are not shy about calling his editor or publisher.  That did not seem to happen here, based on Howard Kurtz's quotes from two of Novak's editors.

However, we have no doubt that, if the CIA was as agitated in July 2003 as Mr. Harlow describes it to have been, there will be plenty of evidence to document it.  Someone ought to ask him about that. 

Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has been tireless on the weak effort undertaken by Mr. Harlow to warn Mr. Novak off.  Here is his Tuesday installment.

OK, lots to do while we sit and wait for Novak (or Pincus, or Libby, or Rove, or Tenet) to have their Perry Mason moment, break down in tears, and confess.

UPDATE:  An extract from a brutal, easily verified comment by a regular here:

There is a procedure to follow if the spokesman or anyone from the public affairs dept (or whatever the CIA calls it) is asked to confirm any information involving someone's employment by the CIA. He must immediately check the status of that individual. If he doesn't, or if he does and the employee is undercover, he is to neither confirm or deny that information.

Harlow confirmed that Valery worked at the CIA. THEN he looked up her status. He blew it.

At that point all he could do is request that Novak not print, but the horse was already out of the barn.

Well, if the CIA press office really did get a heads-up from Ms. Plame about Novak on July 8 July 10 (and why would Wilson be wrong about this? [Hmmph, why would I be wrong about this - make it July 10]), then Harlow has no excuse at all for not having apprised himself of Ms. Plame's status prior to speaking with Novak.  Instead, based on what he told the WaPo, he talked with Novak, then double-checked her status, then called Novak back.  Did he not get the heads-up?  Is my commenter's description of CIA procedure wrong?  Or are there serious problems with Harlow's story?

However, I still say the barn door could have been re-locked simply by calling Novak's editor.

In any case, reporters ought to know, or the CIA press office ought to be willing to say, what the standard CIA procedures are.  Calling Pincus and VandeHei!

Comments

[kim]

JBG, for my sake, read Bob Somerby.
===================================

[Tollhouse]

I thinks it's time for an intervention.

[Steven J.]

"And while on that point, we have yet to see a clear transcript or public citation of Andrea Mitchell making a similar admission in July 2005."

I don't think Mitchell ever said this because if Plame's identity were an open secret, Mitchell would not have gone on about how bad the leak was:

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for July 14
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8551790/

ANDREA MITCHELL: The other thing is a lot of misreporting, including in some of the papers today about what her role was. She was back in the States, had been back in the States since 1997. But she was still covert. She was considered a CIA officer, and a covert officer at Langley. Now she had previously been what was considered under non-official cover, which meant that she was of the deepest type of undercover spy overseas, meaning she had a job in a CIA front organization, a company that took years and years to establish. And that revealing her name was serious because anyone who ever dealt with that company or with her, any foreign national CIA agent, agent that is a term used for foreigners, that person or persons could then be suspect and could then be under life-threatening conditions.

[Dwilkers]

You know what's funny about all this is it appears to me the whole thing could have been innocent and that - due to the OpEd Wilson wrote - everybody started talking about it at the same time, and by "everybody" I mean everybody.

Wilson to explain why he was qualified to go on the mission ("of course I'm qualified to judge WMD issues. My wife works at the CIA as an analyst FGS!), Rove etal to explain that Wilson didn't have anything to do with the White House ("the VP didn't send him. Those idiots at the CIA sent him because his wife works there!).

In fact, I kinda suspect that's what happened and tracking down who said it first may be impossible.

[Steven J.]

"We also know that in a typical bureaucracy, a monumental miscommunication of this magnitude - nationally syndicated columnist ignores CIA press officer and outs covert agent - would have resulted in some internal soul searching, which would have led to memos or minutes with themes of "What Went Wrong" and "How We Will Improve"."

Not necessarily. We outed a mole in Al-Queda for domestic political gain:

http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2005/07/rove-leak-nothing-new.html

Another Al-Queda leak, possibly done for domestic political reasons:

Exclusive: British, American security services clash over terror intelligence
Michael Smith
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_British_American_security_services_clash_over_terror_in_0801.html
American officials compromised another intercept operation during the investigation into the September 11 attacks when they leaked details of two mobile telephone conversations between al-Qaeda members that with hindsight appeared to refer to the attacks.
The conversations sent immediately before the attacks had not been processed until the day after because of the amount of material that was available and as a result became a controversial part of the evidence of intelligence failure.
British intelligence had barred its US counterpart from releasing details of the actual telephone conversations because it would alert those who made them to the fact that not only their phones but the phones of the people they were talking to were being monitored. But they were leaked anyway, cutting off another potential source of intelligence on al-Qaeda activities.

[Steven J.]

DWILKERS -

I think you are losing site of the real issue:

BUSH:The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.
George Tenet, 7/11/03, http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html

[Steven J.]

"sight" (ahem!) :-)

[Martin]

Hey TM-didn't you FPP the Andrea Mitchell thing before in a vain attempt at corroboration?

Give it up. It was a lie originally propagated by Powerlines.

Cliff May otoh indisputably said it-but has clammed up about that bigtime. Odd, since he should be repeating it at every opportunity... If it was true the first time.

[J Mann]

Here's my suggested headline:

What, If Anything, Did Harlow Know, and When Did He Know It?

If I understand Harlow's and Novak's stories right, their contacts happened as follows:

1) Novak calls Harlow to confirm that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA weapons analyst who suggested that Wilson be selected for the Niger trip.

2) Harlow confirms that Plame is a CIA employee, but quibbles with the details, saying that other CIA officials selected Wilson, then asked Plame to contact Wilson for them.

3) Then, after talking with Novak, Harlow checks the records, determines that Plame is undercover, and calls Novak to try to chill the story. According to Harlow, he doesn't say the word "undercover," because the fact that Plame is undercover is classified. According to Novak, Harlow tells him that Plame hasn't been active in years, but that publishing her name "could cause problems."

In what possible universe is it ok for Harlow to tell Novak that Plame works for the CIA, but not ok to tell Novak that Plame is undercover? If the CIA was going to classify anything, it should have been that Plame was a CIA employee, not that she was undercover.

Alternately, if Plame's cover was so unknown that even Harlow, a CIA spokesman, thought he could speak to the press without checking to see if she was undercover, why are we chasing Rove and not Harlow?

[Jeff Z]

"He did not know her name and he didn't call her an operative."

Translation: Russert said that Joseph Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

Cool.

[Jim E.]

"And while on that point, we have yet to see a clear transcript or public citation of Andrea Mitchell making a similar admission in July 2005."

This is lame, why are you pursuing this non-existant Mitchell angle? Instead of putting Mitchell's name in that sentence, you could just as easily put in Tiger Woods', Katie Couric's, John Madden's, Larry King's, or Oprah Winfrey's name. After all, they, like Mitchell, never made a "similar admission." You are jumbling up the known information on this matter and doing little to clarify the situation by knowingly putting in such BS.

[Jim E.]

Instead of Andrea Mitchell headfakes, I'd expect an acknowledgment that two of Rove's close assistants were in front of the grand jury last week. Seems more germane to mention facts involving Rove rather than Powerline misstatements regarding Andrea Mitchell. But that's just me.

[TM]

Sydney H. Schanberg in the Village Voice wants more press disclosure, too.

And on Andrea Mitchell - "You are jumbling up the known information on this matter and doing little to clarify the situation by knowingly putting in such BS.

It's hard to explain without sounding hopelessly patronizing, but... you may think it's BS, and if you followed my Andrea Mitchell link, you might suspect that I think it is BS, but does everyone agree that it is BS? Or just everyone on the left?

[Martin]

No obviously Powerlies still believes it and your rightish commenters continue to cite it.

The point is there no evidence zip nada zilch for the assertion.

Plenty of people (on the right) still think Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. You may think that's BS. You might suspect that I think it is BS, but does everyone agree that it is BS? Or just everyone on the left?

[Geek, Esq.]

An excellent summary of the Republican right's wishful thinking!

If only reality were so comforting to my friends on the right. The fact that Fitzgerald is STILL subpoenaing Rove's coworkers, aides, etc.

And, regarding the Russert thing, Bloomberg's report tells us that "Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity." (I forgot how to do the whole link thing, but everyone's already read that story anyways).

And, I'd be shocked if Joe Wilson WASN'T interviewed by Fitzgerald. His testimony would be essential.

[Martin]

Meanwhile sources friendly to Rove leak that his aides were asked in the grand jury room why Cooper's call wasn't logged into Rove's phone records.

Seems like somebody "forgot" that they talked to Cooper. Understandable of course since busy SAOs talk to so many people and a review of the phone logs wouldn't have jogged the old noggin.

[Martin]

Oh and TM maybe you ponder this in August:

"W]hile indicating that all he knows is what he has read in newspapers, Bush gave Rove a ringing endorsement.

"Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said, adding that internal fact-finding has been hampered by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request that the White House not discuss the inquiry.

Asked if he feels he knows the facts about what his staff's involvement might be in any leaks, Bush said, "We have been cautioned about talking about this issue."

Asked if that caution covered internal White House discussions, Bush said, "Yes."

Now that's some BS my friend.

[Geek, Esq.]

TM:

"It's hard to explain without sounding hopelessly patronizing, but... you may think it's BS, and if you followed my Andrea Mitchell link, you might suspect that I think it is BS, but does everyone agree that it is BS? Or just everyone on the left?"

It's BS. The only folks saying it are dissembling Republican hacks--Powerline and Cliff May.

[cathyf]

In what possible universe is it ok for Harlow to tell Novak that Plame works for the CIA, but not ok to tell Novak that Plame is undercover? If the CIA was going to classify anything, it should have been that Plame was a CIA employee, not that she was undercover.

Alternately, if Plame's cover was so unknown that even Harlow, a CIA spokesman, thought he could speak to the press without checking to see if she was undercover, why are we chasing Rove and not Harlow?

Yeah, I gotta say that I've been scratching my head about that exact point for the last 2 years. Mrs. Wilson donated money to the Gore campaign and gave the name of her front company as her employer, creating a google-ready link between "Valerie Wilson" and "Brewster Jennings & Associates" way back in 2000. Then Joe Wilson's online bio linked "Valerie Plame" to "Valerie Wilson." And now we've got Harlow blabbing to Novak, without checking first to see if she was covert, confirming that Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA. I can't see any way around the fact that Harlow gave official CIA confirmation of the connection between CIA and Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings & Associates.

That's the whole point of cover, right? Either the cover story is that she works for the private company Brewster Jennings & Associates or the story is that she works for the CIA. The CIA and all of its employees (including Harlow and Plame) have to keep their stories straight if they want this whole covert thing to work, and it sure looks like they didn't.

According to Novak, if Harlowe had said something like, "It's real important that you not link her specifically to the CIA. Could you phrase it something like, 'Wilson was recommended by one of the CIA's WMD analysts, who is a personal friend'? If you say it that way, then you still get your point across, but without identifying her in particular," then Novak claims that he would have done that. Now I don't particularly give Novak loads of credibility, but his story is internally consistent and not, on its face, unreasonable. He is claiming that he parsed Harlow's reactions through his Washington Insider Secret Decoder Ring and he didn't get the message that her identity ought to be protected. Like TM said, if the CIA spokescritters don't know how to tell a reporter, "don't print that I can't tell you why {wink} {wink} {nudge} {nudge}" then the CIA has a huge problem and I damn well hope that they've been spending significant resources over the past 2 years trying to fix it. Of course Novak could be lying and maybe Harlow said all the right things and Novak is a just a pig, but I certainly hope the CIA tracked down what happened and tried to fix anything that they identified as an Agency screwup for future cases.

cathy :-)

[Etienne]

Everytime more minutia gets piled onto this story, the main point becomes obscured. Here is what the American people should be asking themselves: Did the current administration POLITICIZE intelligence in its quest to market a war? Burying this central point under a mountain of hesaidshesaid telephone tag is a disgrace. I realize that's the kind of attention to detail the grand jury needs to deal with, but for the American people the central point here is something else entirely.

[TM]

Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity." (I forgot how to do the whole link thing, but everyone's already read that story anyways)

It would be great if you could remember. Isikoff, for example, did a story based on NBC's Aug 2004 press release, but solved the problem of Russert's cagey denial by simply restating the press release:

An NBC statement last year said Russert did not know of Plame, wife of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, or that she worked at the CIA, and "he did not provide that information to Libby."

Well, that is not the press release as other cite it, but it worked for Isikoff, and maybe Bloomberg, too.

Ah, here we go, Aug 2004:

NBC, which has previously said Russert did not receive the leak, said in a statement Monday that Fitzgerald interviewed Russert under oath Saturday about a telephone call he received from I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, in early July 2003. Russert told Fitzgerald that he did not know Plame’s name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Libby, it said.

NBC stressed that Fitzgerald’s questions “focused on what Mr. Russert said during that conversation” and did not ask Russert to compromise any of the network’s news sources. It said Libby had already told the FBI about the conversation and had formally requested that it be disclosed.

Jim, if a round-up of other loose ends is that troubling to you, I am sure you can find plenty of other sites commenting on the Rove aides (and I expect I will get to it eventually). Try Memeorandum.

[John]

Martin, I agree it is mostly BS, but not entirely. Bush likley does not want to have any conversations directly about it or he could end up testifying about them. So he asks Rove whether there is any chance he (Rove) will end up being indicted when the investigation is over and Rove tells him no way. The President then has not discussed any details he can be asked about later and feels comfortable in stating that he has full confidence in Rove.

[Martin]

"but I certainly hope the CIA tracked down what happened"

Umm they did Cathy. The CIA Office of Security undertook and completed an internal investigation. They summarized their findings and sent them to the DOJ Counterespionage division. They then requested the FBI begin a criminal investigation. The CIA knows exactly what happened in their version of reality at least.

[Martin]

No John it's all BS. Bush is the nation's chief law enforcement officer, i.e. he's Fitzgerald's ultimate boss. Forget Rove for now. Bush could have Fitzgerald come into the oval office and personally brief him on the investigation! It's BS.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Speaking of winks and nudges, Bob Somerby should take heed of his own advice to Harlow and stop beating around the bush:

---------quote--------
Starting in July 2003, the mainstream understanding of this issue was largely framed by Wilson. Many of the things you assume to be true came to you from Wilson’s account. But, for all his manifest virtues, Wilson has frequently been a shaky witness; unfortunately, his misstatements have been bold and fairly common. From that, we would draw the following judgment—if you want to know what really happened, you probably shouldn’t simply assume that his frameworks are accurate. By the way, how do you know that Plame was still connected to valuable US security assets? You mainly “know” that because Wilson told you.
----------endquote---------

That could be much stronger. Along the lines of, Joe Wilson's theory of his wife's outing should not be a premise in a syllogism, because it's his CONCLUSION to a syllogism that is verrrrry shaky.

There is a much simpler explanation for why Valerie Plame's name got out. Wilson had been spending months talking to reporters--and finally went public himself in the NY Times--peddling spectacularly false information about his role in Iraq WMD intelligence. Ergo, the truth was going to come out, and Valerie Plame's role was part of it.

[J Mann]

Cathy, we're on the same page.

If Plame was covert in any meaningful sense, then Harlow shouldn't have said "yes, she works for the CIA, but she didn't suggest Wilson's name."

He should have said: "Wilson's wife is not an overt CIA employee. I can't confirm or deny whether she's covert, but I ask you not to speculate on that question, or to print allegations that she works for the CIA."

I mean, the whole point of a "Non Official Cover" is that the CIA will deny, if asked, that you work for the government. Again, in what possible universe does "yes, she's a CIA employee, but I can't tell you if she's covert, because that's classified" constitute a denial?

[John]

Martin, you're kidding right?

"Bush could have Fitzgerald come into the oval office and personally brief him on the investigation!"

This is pure BS. Fitzgerald is investigating the executive branch, he can't have chats with Bush about his progress. If he was, you would be the first to scream cover-up.

[Martin]

No that's pure BS. What's the stautory basis for your claims?

You're saying the DOJ can keep secrets from the President???

[Martin]

"Fitzgerald is investigating the executive branch"

I agree with that part btw-though there's no actual evidence of it-but most people on this blog would dispute it. They still think Wilson is going to be indicted and Rove given a medal.

[J Mann]

Bush probably could ask a special counsel to brief him, but my guess is that the S.C. would resign rather than compromise his independence.

Although the independent counsel statute is gone, Fitzgerald's position was intentionally designed to be as free as possible of DOJ oversight.

[Geek, Esq.]

TM:

Here's the link--I'm assuming you can edit it (or install a toolbar for Luddites like me!)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aY51e404Lx_8&refer=us

[goy]

Etienne -

I would submit that a more valid question, being driven from public discourse by the obfuscation over who 'outed' Plame, is this: Did Joe Wilson IV POLITICIZE his (erroneous) assumption about the CIA's conclusions in an effort to influence the electorate?

The facts - Plame's contributions to Gore, Wilson's support of Kerry and the SSCI report detailing Wilson's misunderstanding of the CIA's conclusion - lend more support to this probability than it does to the 'politicized intelligence' theory. This support is magnified when one factors in the gushing complicity of the "Bush lied" efforts by the press, not to mention human nature.

I blame this entire thing on Novak. Take the first sentence out of para. 6 in his "Mission to Niger" column and it still stands on its own. Novak is solely responsible for the avenue of obfuscation that has been incessantly exploited by folks who would prefer to forget Wilson's lack of credibility (read: the press) - including demanding an independent investigation off into left field (npi).

[cathyf]

Everytime more minutia gets piled onto this story, the main point becomes obscured. Here is what the American people should be asking themselves: Did the current administration POLITICIZE intelligence in its quest to market a war?

I think that the main point that the American people should be asking is: Did the employees of the CIA sabatoge the gathering and analysis of intelligence in their quest to market the notion that we should not fight back against those who have declared war against us?

Cause like ya know, that would be treason.

cathy :-)

[Syl]

re Harlow

I've got some information from a gentleman who was an expert on classification management for the government for two decades. He was involved in FOIA, taught Information Security and was a 'spy catcher'. He worked for the Defense Department, was in the Pentagon for 5 years, yada, yada, and is the reason there is an FBI file on me (he has a top security clearance and when he moved in with me I had to be checked out).

He says Harlow blew it.

The CIA has regular folks and undercover folks that work for them. (There are two employee cafeterias at the CIA and only one has a guard at the door. Guess which employees eat in that one.)

There is a procedure to follow if the spokesman or anyone from the public affairs dept (or whatever the CIA calls it) is asked to confirm any information involving someone's employment by the CIA. He must immediately check the status of that individual. If he doesn't, or if he does and the employee is undercover, he is to neither confirm or deny that information.

Harlow confirmed that Valery worked at the CIA. THEN he looked up her status. He blew it.
At that point all he could do is request that Novak not print, but the horse was already out of the barn.

And Novak knew it. Any piece of classified info disseminated from CIA public affairs is automatically declassified if the person is authorized to release that info. Well Harlow most likely wasn't authorized, but that isn't Novak's problem.

Since Novak knows the rules of the game, and knows Harlow let the horse out by confirming plame's cia employment, he was free to print.

[goy]

cathy - I think we can add the implications of your question to the support for "Wilson politicized his assumption" (with the gushing support of the press). IIRC, there was pervasive opinion within the CIA that favored a hands-off approach to Iraq, wasn't there?

Then again, I'm sure Joe and Valerie never discussed such things. Never mind.

[Etienne]

If Joe Wilson wrote an erroneous op ed, even if his motivations were political, that would have exactly NO impact on our national security or the integrity of our intelligence services.

I realize I'm on a rightwing blog, and it really hasn't dawned on some of you that our government did NOT play straight with us in the runup to this war (that incidentally led to 15 more Marine deaths today, to add to yesterday's 6). However, as citizens of a supposedly free country, we aren't supposed to have wars imposed upon us based on the political whims and fantasies of empire builders. We're supposed to be part of the process, through our elected representatives, and if false intelligence was being peddled to them, we damn well have a right to know about it. Even if Joe Wilson was on a one man crusade, his power in this story is insignificant compared to the might wielded by our own government.

Once again, a point constantly ignored: The WH could have refuted Wilson openly on the merits and chose not to. They chose the backdoor route of character assasination. Why?

[Etienne]

Did the employees of the CIA sabatoge the gathering and analysis of intelligence in their quest to market the notion that we should not fight back against those who have declared war against us?

Uh, yeah, that would be a good question. IF there was so much as an inkling of an indication that this is the case.

The sum total of evidence for this seems to be the unproven allegation that Plame was the one who sent Wilson to Niger, leaving out the protocol by which she'd even have the power to do this. Also that she contributed to Democrats, which in the old two party America would have been insignificant, but in our new one party system of neoMcCarthyism is apparently damnable evidence.

We are really in trouble here in America if people are joining the CIA to risk their lives just to make sure we are NOT safe from terrorist threats. Yup, if that's the case, we should really know about it.

Once again, I'm flabbergasted at the limits Republicans will go to to defend the indefensible.

[cathyf]

The CIA knows exactly what happened in their version of reality at least.

Is that the same version of "reality" where China doesn't have noticeable military capability? Martin, you keep repeating over and over that the CIA conducting an investigation and referring to the DOJ is definitive proof that a crime was committed. But a lot of the rest of us are wondering just how it is that these clowns find their way to the parking lot in Langley without getting lost... (Maybe that's why they had to put up the CIA sign at the Langley highway exit???)

cathy :-)

[TM]

Thanks very much, Geek - I remember that Bloomberg story now - it was later criticized for inventing and exaggerating minor differences.

For exasmple, on Russert, they report this:

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according to a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.

I left the Rove-Novak in there for illustration - Rove said he first learned Ms. Plame's *name* from Novak, but had heard that Wilson's wife had [sent him/authorized/was involved with sending him] to Niger earlier.

With Russert/Libby, it may well be the case that Russert did not pass along her *name* to Libby, and has so testified. And Libby may (a) misremember this, or (b) have testified, e.g., "I first got her name from Russert or Miller".

But if Russert told Libby that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger (which this story does not exclude), then Russert is being cute.

All that said, this does go a bit beyond the NBC press release, so thanks.

[Syl]

Etienne

"Even if Joe Wilson was on a one man crusade, his power in this story is insignificant compared to the might wielded by our own government."

I can't decide if you're more terrified of big government or those scary Republicans. The combination of the two must keep you up at night.

On the other hand, I can't think of anything I'd rather have on my side to fight those pesky Islamic terrorists than a huge government full of terrifying Republicans.

That thought helps me sleep at night.

[TM]

Since Novak knows the rules of the game, and knows Harlow let the horse out by confirming plame's cia employment, he was free to print.

I want to give a huge "I'll be darned" to Syl. And factor in something else - if Wilson is telling the truth is his book (*IF*), then his wife gave the CIA press office a heads up about Novak specifically on July 8. Yet Harlow *still* managed to be unaware of her status when Novak called, and had to doublecheck after talking to him.

That us pretty brutal.

[TM]

From Etienne:

[HER EXCERPT] Did the employees of the CIA sabatoge the gathering and analysis of intelligence in their quest to market the notion that we should not fight back against those who have declared war against us? [END]

Uh, yeah, that would be a good question. IF there was so much as an inkling of an indication that this is the case.

Sit down, Etienne, while we let Seymour Hersh, lefty-approved, rock your world:

Who produced the fake Niger papers? There is nothing approaching a consensus on this question within the intelligence community. There has been published speculation about the intelligence services of several different countries. One theory, favored by some journalists in Rome, is that sismi produced the false documents and passed them to Panorama for publication.

Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.

“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’ ” My source said that he was first told of the fabrication late last year, at one of the many holiday gatherings in the Washington area of past and present C.I.A. officials. “Everyone was bragging about it—‘Here’s what we did. It was cool, cool, cool.’ ” These retirees, he said, had superb contacts among current officers in the agency and were informed in detail of the sismi intelligence.

“They thought that, with this crowd, it was the only way to go—to nail these guys who were not practicing good tradecraft and vetting intelligence,” my source said. “They thought it’d be bought at lower levels—a big bluff.” The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. “It got out of control.”

Like all large institutions, C.I.A. headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, is full of water-cooler gossip, and a retired clandestine officer told me this summer that the story about a former operations officer faking the documents is making the rounds. “What’s telling,” he added, “is that the story, whether it’s true or not, is believed”—an extraordinary commentary on the level of mistrust, bitterness, and demoralization within the C.I.A. under the Bush Administration. (William Harlow, the C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency had no more evidence that former members of the C.I.A. had forged the documents “than we have that they were forged by Mr. Hersh.”)

Let's applaud the cameo by our new best friend, William Harlow. The Hersh excerpt is from The Stovepipe, and here is a rebuttal for agitated righties.

Etienne, I hope you are feeling better.

[goy]

Etienne -

"that would have exactly NO impact on our national security or the integrity of our intelligence services"
Irrelevant thesis. I was referring to Wilson misleading the electorate.

"it really hasn't dawned on some of you that our government did NOT play straight with us in the runup to this war"
And you're basing this assumption on what evidence, specifically? Wilson's assumptions?

We did not have war "imposed on us". Our elected representatives in Congress voted approximately 3:1 to authorize military force in Iraq. Claiming they were "mislead" with faux intelligence without solid evidence to back up the claim is just more obfuscation.

Why should the WH have graced Wilson's accusations with a direct response? And how was his character "assassinated" by the WH?

[Etienne]

Syl, I'd say you're confusing fear with disgust. The only thing that terrifies me about Republicans these days is their incompetence coupled with their lust for unchecked power. It's a bad combination in a three year old and far worse in a government.

43 Americans dead in only the last 10 days, not that the "liberal media" would let any of us know about it. And our efforts have been so successful that New Yorkers have to have their baggage checked just to ride ten blocks on the subway (which to be sure is better than having their own government phony up red alerts like they did during the election). Yup, those terrifying Repubs are doing one hell of a job.

[Steven J.]

PATRICK - "Wilson had been spending months talking to reporters--and finally went public himself in the NY Times--peddling spectacularly false information about his role in Iraq WMD intelligence."

Um, what was spectacularly false?

[Steven J.]

GOV - "Did Joe Wilson IV POLITICIZE his (erroneous) assumption about the CIA's conclusions in an effort to influence the electorate?"

In 2003???

[Steven J.]

GOV - "Claiming they were "mislead" with faux intelligence without solid evidence to back up the claim is just more obfuscation."

Okay, here's some solid evidence:

" I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could
be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States."

Congressional Record: January 28, 2004 (Senate)
Sen. Nelson Page S311-S312

[Dwilkers]

Steven J:

"I think you are losing site of the real issue:"

The "real issue" is 16 words in the SOTU?

Please. The real issue is whether or not someone here broke the law in their political gamesmanship - a game which it is patently OBVIOUS both Wilson/Plame and Rove/Bush were playing on opposite sides in an election year.

Etienne:

"Uh, yeah, that would be a good question. IF there was so much as an inkling of an indication that this is the case."

Good grief. Even the most partisan person in the universe has to acknowledge there was - and astoundingly apparently IS - a PARTISAN war going on in the CIA.

Cathy has it right.

[Steven J.]

DWILKERS - "The real issue is whether or not someone here broke the law in their political gamesmanship - a game which it is patently OBVIOUS both Wilson/Plame and Rove/Bush were playing on opposite sides in an election year."

2003 wasn't an election year.

[boris]

He says Harlow blew it.

The CIA has regular folks and undercover folks that work for them.

Although it confounds my face value/plain english explanation, I like this theory because it makes sense.

Still ... "neither confirm or deny" sound weaker than "classified". Perhaps there is some middle state where the operatives "cover" is that they are just regular worker bees instead of CIA operatives. If so the worker bee cover is no more classified than any operative's cover would be, and the hidden, classified info is that the cover is "not what it seems".

That would make V.P.'s cover that she was a worker bee and blowing that cover would be revealing that she was more than that.