A bit of a koan here. The law is an imperfect guide to human behavior. I did not like it when the Clinton Administration claimed exoneration every time a special prosecutor declined to indict them, applying the standard that "if they don't indict, it's all right". And Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority" concept comes to mind.
Well, if I didn't like it then, I don't like it now as it relates to Ms. Wilson. In this post, I describe how Ms. Wilson could be technically covert, yet her outing might not jeopardize national security; conversely, she might not technically have covert status, yet her "outing" could represent a serious blow to national security.
The law may be either a shield or a sword in this case; White House staffers might hide behind a technicality, or Democrats might hang them on one. Either way, it should not be the central question.
People should focus on three issues - was national security compromised; was Ms. Wilson's safety endangered; and was the law broken. We throw in that last because, yes, White House aides are expected to follow the law.
I will have more later. But my answers don't come up good for the White House. Developing...
UPDATE: An update before we finish? YES! The Hammer has a good round-up of links, and we especially love this explanation of the different jobs at the CIA, and the speculation about where Ms. Wilson might fit in.
MORE: Kevin Drum has a similar theme. Since I may never finish this, here my quick version - even if the aides thought Ms. Wilson was "not really" covert; even if folks at the CIA confirmed that to them, as they did to Novak; it was not worth the risk that someone was wrong. Same point as to her safety - the Ambassador is calling a lot more attention to his wife than the White House ever did, but still, they are responsible for their own actions, which were not good. Increasing the risk to her is simply not acceptable.
Legally, I think we will discover this to be a thicket leading to a swamp. On the first two issues, I am not sure how the WH can defend themselves. Not that I won't try...
Great round-up of relevant info. Just wanted to point your attention to today's CNN coverage. Relevant quotes from David Ensor, their National Security correspondent.
CNN's Ensor reported that sources at the CIA said Plame was an agency operative.
"This is a person who did run agents," Ensor said. "This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information."
He also quotes former CIA Director James Woolsey as well as Colin Powell saying the leak is very serious and endangering intelligence and people's lives.
I would also think that just the fact that the US can't seem to keep secrets harms our ability to gather intelligence in the future.
Posted by: Galois | September 30, 2003 at 10:40 AM
The Washington Post which is pushing the story claims that Valerie Wilson 'has not been using' the name "Valerie Plame" publically and only overseas. The big sin was when Novak revealed that name. Unfortunately, Valerie's husband, Bush Bashing, tea drinking, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, refers to his wife, the former "Valerie Plame" on two public, non overseas, websites. How could this be a cover?
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html
http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html
The later seems to be a Saudi-funded think tank. I do not know who the bad guys are we do not want to know who she is, but in my book the Saudis are one.
Posted by: zionblogster | September 30, 2003 at 01:02 PM
People should focus on three issues - was national security compromised; was Ms. Wilson's safety endangered; and was the law broken.
Four issues. You forgot "Was this a deliberate act by the White House or some third level functionary free lancing?"
Posted by: Gary Utter | September 30, 2003 at 01:02 PM
I found a NY Times article from August 8 that says this about Ms. Plame "Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is known to friends as an energy industry analyst." It's a for-fee article, aparently, but someone posted it in full (?) here.
In my blog I note the change in the State Department bio of Wilson. In 1992 he's married. In 1997, he's not listed as married.
Posted by: Chuck | September 30, 2003 at 04:13 PM
Well, he was born in 1949, so he will be 54 in November (and he is a Scorpio - suddenly, it all comes clear!). He had a son and daughter as of 1992, but now he has also has three year old twins. I don't think it is a longshot to guess this is a second marriage.
Oh, the "energy analyst" was in the David Corn article.
And yes, her non-appearance on the web seems a bit odd if she is a consultant. Well, she is not, so I guess it is not that puzzling.
Posted by: TM | September 30, 2003 at 05:53 PM
I am going to pitch this in from Drudge. It actually seems to jibe with the job description theory I linked to in the update.
Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR.
"I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm
Three decades? If she joined the CIA at age twenty, would that make her fifty? She has three year old twins!
Or is three decades measured as, 1989 to 2003?
Posted by: TM | September 30, 2003 at 10:33 PM
Unfortunately, a discussion of whether national security has been harmed would harm national security.
It seems obvious that her safety is not imperiled since her cover is blown and she won't be stupid enough to go somewhere unsafe.
That leaves door number three.
Posted by: Max Sawicky | September 30, 2003 at 11:08 PM
Well, her safety can be imperiled right here at home - the InstaMan had a letter from a fellow who remembered the two gunmen who shot up some cars right outside of Langely.
And door 3, the legal route, is a long winding road leading to a swamp (IMHO).
This just in from the WaPO:
As the world now knows, Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. She is his third wife. She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30?language=printer
So, "three decades" undercover must mean '80s, '90's, and the Naughties.
Posted by: TM | October 01, 2003 at 06:04 AM
Did you notice this quote from the Meet the Press interview?
"Now, I believe it was done to discourage others from coming forward. At that time there were a lot of analysts who were speaking anonymously to the press about any number of issues related to the intelligence that undergirded the decision to go to war."
Aren't CIA analysts prohibited by law or their contract from discussing their work with anyone? How secret can these guys be if they are blabbing to the press?
Posted by: Tom | October 07, 2003 at 05:01 PM
Good point. We also note that, although the White House may have discouraged CIA analysts from writing signed op-ed pieces for the NY Times, they have other, somewhat more discreet, outlets.
One hopes their tradecraft is up to the task of leaking quietly.
Posted by: TM | October 07, 2003 at 05:56 PM
do penis enlargement pills work for you ?
do penis enlargement products work for you ?
do penis pills work for you ?
do penis enlargement extender work for you ?
Posted by: penis | October 03, 2006 at 06:50 AM