The NY Times tells us what we have been telling you for months, and creeps closer to the truth about their own role, and that of their columnist Nick Kristof, in the Wilson saga:
WASHINGTON, July 15 - Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.
Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.
The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.
Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.
The WSJ described the memo in Oct 2003, as the Times notes. However, the Times confirms that the memo names ms. Wilson as "Valerie Wilson".
There is more background in the Senate Subcomittee on Intelligence Report in the Niger section.
Newsweek connected the memo to the investigation in August 2004:
Sources close to the case say prosecutors were interested in discussions Powell had while with President George W. Bush on a trip to Africa in July 2003, just before Plame's identity was leaked to columnist Robert Novak. A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger—a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status. At the time, White House officials were seeking to discredit Wilson, who had become a public critic of the Bush administration. There's no indication Powell is a subject of the probe; the department official said the secretary never talked to Novak about the Plame matter.
Let's give props to Cecil Turner, who left a cogent comment at the Beldar Blog summarizing all this back in Feb '05. And Arianna Huffington her naughty self noted the link in this post from July 8, so the Times is not blazing an unfamiliar trail.
We note the obvious - Operation Take A Leak For Karl, Day II, is off to a good start for the White House. Can Special Counsel Fitzgerald get the many lawyers and witnesses back to their former scared and silent selves? Or can we find some faction to leak what we presume is the other side of this story - I saw obstruction of justice and perjury floated somewhere, but the Times has gone over to All The Good News Thats Fit To Print. Cynics will suggest they just want to Free Judy - well, there, I suggested it.
We also note the Times creeping up on the truth about their role in launching Joe Wilson's star:
The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times in which he recounted his mission and accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq.
We will explain the June 10 date in a moment.
It is not clear who asked for the memorandum, but in the weeks before it was written, there were several accounts in newspapers about an unnamed former diplomat's trip to Africa seeking intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program. On May 6, 2003, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, wrote of a "former U.S. ambassador to Africa" who had reported to the C.I.A. and the State Department that reports of Iraq seeking to acquire uranium in Niger were "unequivocally wrong."
Yes, and that May 6 Kristof column got results - let's let Mr. Kristof enjoy his victory lap, writing on Friday, June 13, 2003:
Condoleezza Rice was asked on "Meet the Press" on Sunday about a column of mine from May 6 regarding President Bush's reliance on forged documents to claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Ms. Rice acknowledged that the president's information turned out to be "not credible," but insisted that the White House hadn't realized this until after Mr. Bush had cited it in his State of the Union address.
Ms. Rice was embarrassingly ill-informed on Sunday, June 8 (Tim Russert replayed it on Sept 28); by June 10, a memo was circulating addressing the question of "what is this trip they are asking about, and who is this mysterious ambassador?"
Of course, both Kristof columns are riddled with errors given to him by Joe Wilson, his no-longer secret source. Regular readers will recall that last summer I wondered if the NY Times would ever face up to this. Perhaps their long journey back to the truth has begun. (Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard has more on Wilson's early misunderstandings and miscommunications).
And for a trip down memory lane, here is an old post:
Excerpting from "The Politics of Truth" by Joe Wilson himself (p. 355), I find Wilson describing a meeting with David Shipley, editor of the op-ed page, at the Times on July 24, 2003:
En route, down a long windowless corridor [inside the Times building] with offices on either side, doors sporting the names of Times writers, we ran into veteran Timesman Robert Semple. David [Shipley] explained that I was "the one who wrote the article on what he didn't find in Africa," and Semple, turning to me, said, "So, you're the one who turned our paper around." The Times had been mired in the scandal surrounding Jayson Blair, the fraudulent journalist whose reporting had been questioned by a number of colleagues.
Well, they wouldn't want anyone to question their reporting, would they?
MORE: Did I say that the INR memo "strikes again"? Folks who remember the Jeff Gannon debacle will remember that the Kos Crew overestimated Gannon's access to intelligence - what they saw as access to classified intelligence looked more like a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. But they managed to gull Josh Marshall and the NY Times before reality struck. Background and mockery, for those with Dark Hearts.
Just a side note with Rove,AP somehow got emails and Rove figured out that Cooper was trying to bait him when http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/07/15/national/w161250D87.DTL&type=printable>he called. These leaks have to be driving fitzgerald nuts.
Posted by: Ripclawe | July 16, 2005 at 02:07 AM
um ---this new TM post is raher...great, I would say more but that would be ...whatever
this JUMPED
---Of course, both Kristof columns are riddled with errors given to him by Joe Wilson, his no-longer secret source. ---
th crux...powell/tenet, no bother the non-interested (ie 99% of the population) could give a rats ass...
however JM never seems to pontificate on Judy?
Posted by: peapies | July 16, 2005 at 02:25 AM
The timing of the INR memo's production and its accumulated frequent flyer miles (Africa's pretty far away) don't look so hot for the White House.
And if Ari knew of it, what are the chances Rove didn't?
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 03:06 AM
sam--read new TM post...the investment gave no returns...sorry about that
Posted by: peapies | July 16, 2005 at 03:10 AM
So the best case scenario for the WH is that the memo didn't mention her undercover status?
Let's assume that's correct. The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted to discredit Wilson, that was churning up info about him. Chances that Plame's specific status didn't come up, minus chances that detail was studiously avoided? Pretty small, I'd say.
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 03:19 AM
Tom, I think the entire comments section of the Beldar Blog (clink link on props to Cecil Turner) of which both you and Mr. Turner were contributors is a must-read for all JustOneMinute fans as it lays out many of the legal issues being tackled by this Grand Jury.
Posted by: Lesley | July 16, 2005 at 04:09 AM
The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted to discredit Wilson...
You say that like it is a BAD thing!
Look, if they wanted to "discredit" him in the sense of sliming him by saying, "How are you going to believe a guy who is on his third marriage and probably has a drinking problem", well, that would be bad (Ask John Tower. And I have NO EVIDENCE that Wilson has a drinking problem.)
If, as is the case, they wanted to "discredit" his report by saying (a) it was not, contrary to his assertions, undertaken at the request of Cheney; (b) it was not, contrary to his statements, conclusive; and (3) his non-conclusions were not, contrary to his assertions, widely circulated - well, we could use the word "rebut" rather than, e.g., "slime".
And for Wilson to complain that they slimed me by calling me a liar - well, that is a stronger defense if you aren't one.
Posted by: TM | July 16, 2005 at 07:02 AM
Wilson makes stuff up and bends rules like a borderline personality. An older name is sociopath, and an even older one is borderline schizophrenic. Kerry is another one.
I blame Joe Wilson for the mess Africa is in today and the mess the Mideast was in until this administration started paying appropriate attention to it.
Well, I suspect his career has some, shall we say, curious, moments. If he acted, representing the US then, as he acts now, I feel assured asserting that he did us diplomatic harm.
============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 08:56 AM
"The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted to discredit Wilson...
The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted the truth about Wilson, which would discredit the lying scumbag...
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt | July 16, 2005 at 09:34 AM
Today’s WaPo also reports on the memo, but doesn’t have the key details that the NYT’s piece does, but it does add this:
Posted by: The Kid | July 16, 2005 at 10:42 AM
From todays WAPO:
Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony.(the great Luskin).
And of course Rove said "i didn't know her name,I didn't leak her name."
The thing is these absolute denials come with no expiration date. Like, in 1982 I hadn't heard of Plame either.
Which of you McGruff the Slime Dogs can tell me what
time period Rove is talking about b/c otherwise they're pretty useless.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 10:44 AM
Argumentum ad absurdem, M; I'll give you one guess what time period he was talking about.
Hello, we've been time-machined back there every year for the last two.
At the risk of being repetitive:
June,
July.
Joe'll
lie.
===============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 10:52 AM
Well, take the name, the date is no longer Novak's column, since we know he talked to Novak before it was published-and confirmed it to Novak, so he knew it even before that.
So really what's the cut-off date?
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 10:57 AM
Oh right-it's when he learned it from the other journalist-whose name he can't remember.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 11:00 AM
Hey Joe,
C'mon, Fool
Shake us all out o'
Them Summertime Blues.
=========================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 11:05 AM
M: It seems everyone was talking to everyone about it, back in the unspecified time period. Why was that?
==============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 11:08 AM
Rove will march to and frog in his fortress til his opponents croak.
Wilson turns slowly, slowly, in the wind. Or is that a spit? Let's ask John Dean.
============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 11:13 AM
Also from this NYT story: "The C.I.A. was asked by Mr. Cheney's office and the State and Defense Departments to look into the reports."
Hasn't that been attacked as a lie repeatedly on this blog?
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 11:40 AM
And I've yet to understand why Bush would need to hire a personal attorney if the RNC points are correct?
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Faced with deviousness this deep, I'd get a lawyer, too. People like Wilson can be extremely dangerous people. Just look at all the ones whose lives he has touched, lately.
===============================
============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 11:54 AM
Clearly, Marty, people only hire attorneys when they have done something wrong or have something to hide.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 01:29 PM
Yep. Unless Bush is going to sue the pretzel maker for that choking incident, you're right.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 01:38 PM
You might be surprised just how many people have aspiration incidents with pretzels. For exemplary purposes, try crunching a mouthful of crackers, then breathing in.
============================
Posted by: kim | July 16, 2005 at 01:44 PM
TM
"we could use the word 'rebut'"
I'm still waiting patiently for someone to explain why Rove found it impossible to "rebut" Wilson without mentioning words such as "Wilson's wife." And without hiding the whole thing behind "double super secret background."
Also, since Rove was simply protecting democracy by setting the record straight, why has he (and the White House) been lying about this for two years?
Also, since making sure that reporters only run accurate articles is a top priority for Rove, why did he say (according to Cooper) that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip, since there is apparently no support for such a strong claim, outside of Rove's imagination?
KIM
"I suspect his career has some, shall we say, curious, moments"
Please refer me to any sign that anyone on the right was ever critical of Wilson at any time in his long career, prior to the moment when he started blowing the whistle on Dubya's WMD scam. Maybe around 1992, when he voted for Dubya's dad?
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 16, 2005 at 01:50 PM
What I love about you, Marty, is that you continually demonstrate a patently provincial worldview: Republicans-Evil-Bad-Stupid, under all circumstances. At the same time, your comments show that you think are witty and sophisticated.
It's all highly amusing.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 01:50 PM
No, the world is much more complicated, I admit, but I have to dumb it down for you guys.
Incidentally, why do you people think its good news that the locus of the leak is now placed on a plane with Bush himself?
No wonder he hired an attorney.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 02:02 PM
JUKEBOXGRAD
Publicly, American diplomats are supposed to support American policy. Period. They are not supposed to go on network television and write op-eds in the New York Times blasting a war which the U.S. is currently fighting.
If an American diplomat does this, it's bad. If an American diplomat does this and it turns out that much of what he says is wrong, and that he has told lies, and that his claims are based on a negligent investigation which he himself conducted, it's corrupt.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 02:04 PM
Hmm... nice sober conversation here,eh?
Posted by: jerry | July 16, 2005 at 02:15 PM
You are right, Marty. We're dumb. Consequently, I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that this sentence makes no sense whatseover:
"Incidentally, why do you people think its good news that the locus of the leak is now placed on a plane with Bush himself?"
Indeed, please break this down for me and help me understand this complex sentence. The plain meaning is an implication that President Bush leaked information. I'm sure it's more complex that that. More subtle.
You are the one who has the learnin'. I am counting on you.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 02:17 PM
Seven, you're doing a fabulous job of answering questions I haven't asked while you consistently sidestep the ones I have asked. Very impressive. Also impressive is the way you make questionable statements and then crawl into the woodwork when they're shown to be false. Here's a little reminder for you:
"Valerie Plame was not a clandestine officer."
Talk is cheap, especially yours. I realize that typing those words is easy for you. What's not easy is lifting a finger to even begin to dispute the proof presented here.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 16, 2005 at 02:45 PM
Buddy, Valerie Plame was not a clandestine officer for several years before her husband went to Niger. That's a fact.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 02:50 PM
TM,
You really miss my point. Put aside the issue of which party (Wilson or the WH) is right about this stuff.
Say Wilson was wrong about everything he reported on. The White House still had to go into damage control mode. Wilson may have been lying through his teeth, but he was still damaging.
So the WH started getting ammo for push-back, more than a month before the NYT op-ed.
They learned his wife was CIA at the very least.
What are the chances they didn't learn she was covert? Not very high.
More pointedly, how did they learn she was CIA without learning she was at least possibly covert?
You can't come up with a plausible scenario in which they learn she's CIA without them either learning of or making an express point not to learn of her status. Remember, she was not officially CIA at that point.
Plus, Novak's non-Rove source clearly knew. If Source X knew, what are the chances his fellow high-ranking administration colleagues didn't know?
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 02:57 PM
SamAm -- She wasn't covert. I think this fact may be somewhat damaging to your argument.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 03:00 PM
Oh yeah, the phrase "double super secret background" clearly alludes to the fact that it wasn't public knowledge that Plame was CIA.
Why use it if she's just a regular ole' employee?
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 03:01 PM
She was NOC (Brewster-Jennings, anyone?). She was not a regular CIA employee.
CIA asked Novak not to publish her name. CIA made a criminal referral. Fitzgerald is still looking into the matter 2 years later. She was not a regular CIA employee, and the very pattern of leaks suggests that fact.
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 03:12 PM
The phrase "double super secret background" clearly alludes to the fact that Rove was to be an anonymous source.
Valerie Plame was a regular CIA employee.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 03:17 PM
'(b) it was not, contrary to his statements, conclusive...'
That needs to be kept in the forefront. Wilson's entire essay was a classic of the ad ignorantum fallacy (the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence). Wilson is so stupid he still doesn't realize his little trip added nothing to what was known about uranium purchases.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 16, 2005 at 03:19 PM
If it were all on the up-and-up, Judith Miller wouldn't be sitting in jail.
Among other things. Novak's use of the word "operative" being one of them. Or Plame's 1999 FEC filing.
It doesn't say CIA.
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 03:21 PM
Tom, I've been reflecting on those Beldar comments (BTW Beldar had a small heart attack, may the Lord bless and keep him), especially Mr. Turner's "leak vector" notion. Did I understand you all correctly that Valerie Plame may not have been covert but the operation of which she was a part may have been compromised and that is why the CIA is determined to get to the bottom of this?
Posted by: Lesley | July 16, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Miller chose to go to jail. She can walk out any time she likes.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 03:52 PM
Also, the fact that Miller hasn't gotten a genuine waiver is clear evidence that the administration is not fully cooperating and that the White House has lied to the nation when they said all members of the administration were doing so. It also makes me wonder why Bush hasn't fired Miller's source.
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 04:08 PM
SamAm -- Are you cleverly skewering the leftists here, so much so that I'm not quite getting it?
"[T]he fact that Miller hasn't gotten a genuine waiver" -- What is a genuine waiver? How do you know when a waiver is genuine? Perhaps Miller has not gotten a waiver from her source. Rove, Libby, et. ad. naus. signed waivers. Are you questioning the authenticity of what they signed? The quality of the paper?
"It also makes me wonder why Bush hasn't fired Miller's source." Perhaps her source is no longer in the government. Perhaps her source never was in government. Perhaps her source is Wilson, or Plame. Perhaps her source is herself. Perhaps her source is another journalist. Perhaps she has no source because it was common knowledge that Plame has a job working at Langley. What is my source for the fact that it is hot outside today?
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 04:15 PM
nachos-in his brief, Fitzgerald says he know whose source is-its a specific executive branch official.
In his opinion, Judge Hogan says he knows her source is and the person has signed a waiver allowing her to testify.
That's why she's in jail for contempt.
At least stick to the facts.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 04:27 PM
Let's assume Karl Rove is the exclusive source for everything and everyone, including Miller (though, of course, he is not).
Rove signed a waiver. Miller chose not to testify. The current theory in vogue, then, is that the waiver is somehow not "genuine"? What, exactly, is the standard for authenticity? What would someone have to do to "genuinely" waive this mythical journalistic privilege?
Isn't it more likely that there is a different source? Isn't it more likely that Miller has gone to jail to protect someone who does not wish to have his or her name revealed as a source?
By the way, Marty: I had not heard that the Judge voiced such speculation. If he did, it's unwise. Judges tend to avoid giving opinions on evidence before the evidence is presented.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 04:43 PM
rom the Dc Circuit Appeals opinion:
"In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.”
See http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf on pg. 6.
"Specified" in the subpoena, in the week before Novak's column, i.e. Fitzgerald knows who she talked to-he does have phone records.
Fitzgerald doesn't want to know who she talked to, but what they talked about.
These are the conversations Miller won't discuss-and per today's Wapo, Fitzgerald is going to ramp it up to criminal contempt next.
Posted by: martin | July 16, 2005 at 04:47 PM
So you have shown that the prosecutor has obtained phone records, Marty. That's impressive. Your intellect knows no bounds. Still, I don't understand how any of this proves your contentions:
"Fitzgerald says he know whose source is-its a specific executive branch official.
In his opinion, Judge Hogan says he knows her source is and the person has signed a waiver allowing her to testify."
I'm just silly and slow, so I'm hoping you can clarify some things for me. Thanks so much for your patience.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 04:54 PM
Ok-
1. in the subpoena to Miller (still under seal), Fitzgerald names a specific government official who talked to Miller from July 6 to July 13, 2003.
That's from the Appeals opinion quoted above.
2. I can't dredge through the briefs, but here's the Wapo story:
"Yesterday, Hogan questioned the reporters' assertions that they are keeping a promise not to identify a confidential source. In appellate court filings, Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward.
"The sources have waived their confidentiality," Hogan said. "They're not relying on the promises of the reporters. . . . It's getting curiouser and curiouser."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000205_pf.html
So Fitzgerald knows the source, and the Judge knows the source, and the source has signed a waiver-according to Judge Hogan.
Now this is apparently the same general waiver that Cooper felt wasn't good enough to testify it was Rove. But Cooper weaseled out anyway.
Miller won't weasel like Cooper-but why won't Miller's source come forward witha specific release?
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 05:11 PM
1. "Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward." I would suggest that Fitzgerald thinks he knows, because of other evidence that he has.
2. What is a specific release? Is this a special legal document that only super-smart lefties like you know about, Marty? Why should anyone sign a special "Judith Miller Release"? If Miller's source waived but Miller wants to rot in jail, that's her problem, isn't it? She either has a waiver from her source or she doesn't.
I'm guessing that she doesn't, or that she does but she won't talk. In the latter case, the source is probably a government official or former official who is a little more popular with Big Media than, say Karl Rove or Scooter Libby.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 05:24 PM
Seven Machos-
If Libby (who's almost certainly her source) signed the gov't provided release to begin with, why not tell the world he wants Miller to testify openly and honestly about their meeting. Why not sign a more explicit release? Why not wave any pretense of source confidentiality?
It's clear that's because Libby doesn't want to increase the chance Miller testifies. Libby is depending on Miller's silence. Miller is helping him obstruct justice, is helping him get away with what are almost certainly indictable behaviors.
Libby is not fully cooperating. That is a cover up.
Posted by: SamAm | July 16, 2005 at 05:46 PM
"She either has a waiver from her source or she doesn't. I'm guessing that she doesn't"
So you're saying Fitzgerald and the Judge are lying?
"or that she does but she won't talk."
Penetrating insight.
SamAm is correct.
Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2005 at 05:50 PM
1. Marty and Sammy: "Why not wave any pretense of source confidentiality?" I know you know this, because you are so much smarter than the entire population of voting Republicans put together, but grand jury meetings are confidential and cannot be discussed publicly. How does Scooter get around the confidentiality requirements of grand jury proceedings?
2. Isn't signing a waiver telling the world? Assuming you are correct (though you aren't), should Libby take out a full-page ad in the Washington Post? Perhaps a late-night infomercial? A billboard?
3. I never said anyone (except Joe Wilson) is a liar. I merely posit that the prosecutor can only guess at Miller's source, based on evidence such as phone records. If he and the judge know -- and if Fitzgerald can prove that he knows -- why is Judith Miller in jail? If you have a witness who won't testify but you don't need that witness, you simply move forward with your investigation, thankful that you don't have to deal with an uncooperative witness.
4. I think Miller's source is someone who has not signed any agreement, or who has but is now out of government service.
5. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you guys aren't the geniuses I thought you were. You certainly don't seem to know much about law or politics.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 06:04 PM
@ Steven Machos
The waiver excuse is bullshit. I believe in addition to saying that the judge and prosecutor know who she talked to, it said that individual has come forward. Well, if they've come forward, I'd guess it's safe to say they've already testified. Now they have one side of this two person exchange and they want to hear the other side. Seems reasonable to me.
Even Pincus has said that if the source comes forward and identifies themselves, then there is no longer any confidentiality to uphold.
So who's Judy covering for? Let's be real careful on who we call someone within the "Administration". Very few within the Executive Branch qualify as Administration officials. An Administration official is someone who was appointed by the current Administration, not any government employee who happens to have a job during any Administration.
This "Administration" differentiation is very important to keep in mind and may be even more so in the coming weeks (months) when we finally learn the source of Plames outting.
Posted by: MaDr | July 16, 2005 at 07:15 PM
MaDr -- Everything you say above sounds plausible and well-reasoned to me.
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 16, 2005 at 07:18 PM
I came in here for my opinion to be swayed. The 'debate' is easily won by people like Seven Machos, since slime balls like Martin accuse the rest of us of being stOOpid. And that he and his liberal effetes speak for America. Check out the next election craphead!
Posted by: dickmr | July 16, 2005 at 11:41 PM
Seven,
First you said "Valerie Plame was not a clandestine officer." Then you said "Valerie Plame was not a clandestine officer for several years before her husband went to Niger."
Now we're getting somewhere. By the way, what you just did is commonly known as backpedaling. Not far enough, however.
This very recent article does a good job of explaining that there are "Shades of Cover: Although often cast in binary terms — an operative is either undercover or not — there are distinct categories of cover ... Plame's cover... was somewhere in the middle of those extremes ... Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said it was unlikely Plame was in danger as a result of being identified. An internal CIA review concluded that her exposure caused minimal damage, mainly because she had been working at headquarters for years, former officials familiar with the review said ... Still, her clandestine career is over, and the outrage among many current and former case officers lingers because cover is something they go to such great lengths to protect."
The bottom line is that she was employed by "the clandestine service," she had done undercover work in the past, and she presumably expected to do undercover work in the future, until Rove/Novak et al blew her cover.
"Valerie Plame was a regular CIA employee."
You're not offering a shred of proof. I guess because you don't have any. By the way, even if she was, Rove had a duty to check first. As far as we can tell, he didn't.
"The phrase 'double super secret background' clearly alludes to the fact that Rove was to be an anonymous source."
If Rove was simply doing his noble duty to help prevent the press from publishing false information, why did he have to do it anonymously? And why did he lie about his behavior for two years?
SamAm said: "how did they learn she was CIA without learning she was at least possibly covert?"
Good point. Just knowing she was CIA was clearly enough to at least introduce the possibility she was covert. The above article says "as many as one-third of the CIA's approximately 20,000 employees are undercover or have worked in that capacity at some point in their careers."
Also, Novak said she was an "operative" working on "WMD," which of course is widely understood to be a highly sensitive, strategic and secret area. Note that a common definition of "operative" is "a secret agent; a spy." For some strange reason a simple word like "employee" wasn't sufficient for Novak. The fact that Novak mentioned "operative" and "WMD" tends to create the impression that Novak knew she was covert, and intentionally communicated that information in his article.
"Are you questioning the authenticity of what they signed? The quality of the paper?"
Go read about why Cooper finally changed his mind and you'll see that Cooper, at least, drew a distinction between waivers he took seriously and waivers he didn't. It has to do with believing a waiver might be coerced.
"Perhaps her source never was in government."
Seems unlikely: "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife" (link). In other words, it seems there is someone else in the White House who was helping Rove leak. This ties together with what other folks are saying about Libby and Miller.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 12:35 AM
Patrick,
"his little trip added nothing to what was known about uranium purchases."
Whoops, you've got to get your talking points in order. Didn't you get the memo? As Tierney said today, Wilson's report "in some ways ... supported ... the Iraq-Niger link." So which is it? Your "nothing" or Tierney's "supported?"
"Wilson's entire essay was a classic of the ad ignorantum fallacy (the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence)"
He acknowledged that. He merely said "his [Bush's] conclusion was not borne out by the facts _as I understood them_" (emphasis added). What's wrong with that?
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 12:36 AM
Lesley,
"Valerie Plame may not have been covert"
Plame was a covert operative. All the proof you need is here.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 12:37 AM
JUKEBOXGRAD
Clearly, then, Bob Novak should be imprisoned for breaching national security. This kind of irresponsible journalism simply cannot be tolerated. Certain things cannot be printed without approval from the CIA.
Also, just to clarify, because I am so dense, the current Good Guy/Bad Guy demonology for the Left is:
Good: Cooper, Plame, Wilson, unnamed sources who name Rove or anyone associated with Bush
Bad: Rove, Novak, Libby
TBD: Miller, unnamed sources who name Democrats
Is that about right?
Posted by: Seven Machos | July 17, 2005 at 12:54 AM
Seven,
"Clearly, then, Bob Novak should be imprisoned for breaching national security."
Uh, no. He's a reporter. His rights and obligations are very different than Rove's. No one understands this better then Rove, and they have a very symbiotic relationship.
No, Novak obviously shouldn't be imprisoned. He should just be seen as what he is: a whore. I've always believed that prostitution should be legal.
"Certain things cannot be printed without approval from the CIA."
Nice job putting words in my mouth. What I actually said is that Rove had an obligation to warn the Agency, and then they could have asked Novak, in a nice way, to not out Plame. But I guess somehow for some mysterious reason this would have gotten in the way of Rove's noble mission to make sure reporters only publish accurate stories, so therefore Rove wasn't able to do what was right for national security.
"Good Guy/Bad Guy demonology"
As Rove said, I'm not taking the bait. You might look at the world that way. I don't.
Also, I'm currently running a trade deficit with you, in the sense that I'm answering lots of your questions while you ignore mine. Scroll up if you've forgotten.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 01:35 AM
DU and Schumer and you. Anyone else flocking to Joe Wilson's side defending his probity?
Why is that?
=========
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 08:28 AM
Kim,
"Anyone else flocking to Joe Wilson's side defending his probity?"
I really haven't been paying attention to the question of how many people are "flocking to Joe Wilson's side defending his probity." That's because Wilson's "probity" has nothing whatsoever to do with Rove's behavior. As I've pointed out many times, even if one accepts the idea that both Wilson and Plame are creeps, liars and traitors (or even, horror of horrors, Democrats), none of that gives Rove a free pass to out an agent.
Folks like you, on the other hand, are extremely interested in analyzing Wilson's "probity," because you have virtually nothing else to work with as far as defending Rove (and answering the hard questions about Rove, some of which I summarized here). In other words, the question of Wilson's "probity" is a feeble and transparent act of misdirection and it doesn't fool anyone who has any minimal ability to think for himself.
Speaking of Wilson's "probity," please let me know if you can find any sign whatsover of anyone on the right making any pejorative statement regarding Wilson at any time in his long career, prior to the moment when he started blowing the whistle on Dubya's WMD scam. Maybe around 1992, when he voted for Dubya's dad? Maybe in 1999, when he contributed $1,000 to Dubya's campaign? Maybe in 2000, 2001, and 2002 when he contributed to a Republican congressman?
Maybe in 2002 when Dubya's dad sent Wilson a personal note that said "I have great respect for you and for your service to our country."
Maybe around the time of the first Gulf War, when Dubya's dad said "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job" (link).
Speaking of Wilson's "probity," let me know what you think of the "probity" of folks who smear Wilson by telling outright lies such as "Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger."
Nothing like telling lies to attack someone's probity, I guess. Welcome to Swift Boats part 2.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 10:09 AM
In fact I have said several times that I think it is worth investigating Joe Wilson's past with a little more informed eye. People like him don't spring forth full grown suddenly. Look at John Kerry. Funny you should mention the Swifties.
Where is Joe Wilson's Band of Brothers?
============================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 10:52 AM
"I think it is worth investigating Joe Wilson's past with a little more informed eye"
Let me know how you make out.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 at 02:06 PM
The outcry from the Band of Brothers is deafening. They're playing "Joe, We Never Knew Ya'".
========================
Posted by: kim | July 17, 2005 at 02:28 PM
JUKEBOXGRAD's claim that the linked information proves Vaterie Plame was covert is at least partially undermined by the following quote:
"A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be ..."
The claim that Plame didn't recommend her husband is inconsistant with the undisputed evidence that she originally suggested him for the trip and followed up by writing a supporting memo. If the source is willing to misrepresent one fact, how much faith can we have in anything else he says?
In regard to the statement that "Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger" is an outright lie: while it may be true Wison never exactly said that, he certainly gave that impression. I suggest anyone who doubts this read the articles written at the time of the original controversy. For instance, this CNN story stating that, "In an op-ed piece published in Sunday's New York Times, Wilson wrote that the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002 at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's office." Or this newspaper story which says, "Wilson says he was sent on behalf of Vice President Cheney." Or this blog which says Wilson was sent "at the behest of Dick Cheney to investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence." Or this well-known open">http://www.counterpunch.org/vips07142003.html">open letter from the self-styled "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" claiming that Joseph Wilson was "the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney's request."
Posted by: mjw | July 21, 2005 at 08:57 PM
A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.
And page 39 of the SSCI tells us she was CPD.
Does that make Plame the DO CPD? Page 58
Were those Niger Forgeries in Plame's safe in mid Oct 2002?
Posted by: Rocco | September 17, 2006 at 03:57 AM