Nit Picks And Quick Hits on Plame

My think piece is below, but there was some fun stuff in the reporting today that I wanted to mention.

(1)  Flame On!  Novak said that Plame's name was available in Who's Who, but he never said that was where he got it.  And I'll add this this - Judy Miller did not get "Valerie Flame" out of Who's Who, or from Google [OK, maybe she did, says J Pod].

I don't read too much into that - someone, probably an irate feminist, got tired of hearing about "Wilson's wife" and looked her up.  Or, someone who knew her from her early days at the CIA (Tenet?  McLaughlin?) always remembered her by her maiden name.  Someday, Novak may tell us, but Judy seems to have forgotten, at least for purposes of grand jury testimony.

(2) Who is "Victoria Wilson"?  Beats me, but that is what Judy wrote in her notes, and where is the trust?

My third interview with Mr. Libby occurred on July 12, two days before Robert D. Novak's column identified Ms. Plame for the first time as a C.I.A. operative. I believe I spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone from my home in Sag Harbor, N.Y.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife. In my notebook I had written the words "Victoria Wilson" with a box around it, another apparent reference to Ms. Plame, who is also known as Valerie Wilson.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity.

File this under "Unsolved Mysteries" - Howard Fineman wrote a piece originally titled "Victoria's Secret", as per these excerpts; per Atrios, Mike Isikoff called her "Vickie".  Que pasa?  Did these reporters share one droll source, did they gossip with each other, did they have Group Brainfreeze, or what?  And if Miller is lying to her own diary, why not pick a code name, like "Diana Smith"?  [Digby is also puzzled.]

(3)  Bill, You Should Have Been Straight With Us:

Bill Keller, current NY Times editor, discussing the jailing of Judy Miller on July  6:

TERENCE SMITH: Now, the prosecutor made the point in court that not only does he know the identity of Judy Miller's source, that he -- that source has signed a waiver of confidentiality, in which case, what is Judy Miller defending?

BILL KELLER: I don't know whether the special prosecutor knows the identity of her source.

OK, I squawked at the time about that statement, and squawked about their phony editorials pretending that the identity of her source was a mystery.  And now the Times arrives with their latest version:

...But Mr. Sulzberger and the paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller's conversations with her confidential source other than his name.

[BIG SKIP]

It was in these early days that Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger learned Mr. Libby's identity. Neither man asked Ms. Miller detailed questions about her conversations with him.

You cannot imagine my lack of surprise.

(4)  Where Is The Love?

I thought Libby and Judy were like, best buds, plotting the war and misleading the nation into ruin.  Instead, she tells us this:

I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

(5) Why So Shy?

The Times has a pop-up graphic which they call "The Leak Timeline".  First entry - President Bush's State of the Union with the "16 Words".  Second entry - Joe Wilson's op-ed.

Hey, what about Nick Kristof's column of May 6, 2003, which brought Wilson into the debate?  What about Kristof's follow-up column of June 13?  Why doesn't the Times want to mention those great moments in breakthrough journalism?

Gee, I have a guess - the Kristof column was shot through with misinformation, Wilson later explained that he had been misquoted or misattributed, and the Times has never addressed any of this.

Well, that's my thought - we eagerly await the Times explanation.  As if.  And don't look for any mention of Kristof's role in the big Times story about Miller and Libby.  On June 23 Libby was pushing back against anonymous leaks, but the Times says nothing about where those leaks were aired, or how well they stood up.

OK, that was fun, but I try to think about what it all means below.

UPDATE:  Murray Waas - Out of the Mainstream, or Ahead of the Pack?  Ahead of the pack, and I was a fool to doubt him!  As per Mr. Wass, and contra the Times, the WaPo, and Newsweek, Ms. Miller's June 23 notes did refer to a conversation that referenced Wilson's wife, although perhaps not by name.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

--without the spittle and the accent.

but he is just a surfer boy with carpenter skills---much like jesus

gag, I am born and raised in San Clemente. When I hear this nine ball even refer to his lamo brother (ah yes them local boyz that do caprttery for the "rent vs. buy" wizard---his brother is as drippingly self important than old "speak truth to power"---I just, well you can all guess

[windansea]

Jeff...

it hasn't been covered much but there are FBI agents crawling all over the CIA....at some point I think the niger docs investigation got folded into Fitz's plamegate GJ

why?? cuz they are linked

if anyone in the Admin is proven to have lied or deliberately leaked a NOC etc...I won't complain

but I think Plamegate was a sting and part of a much more serious crime....passing off fake docs to embarass and weaken the US govt

hopefully we'll know soon

[kim]

Jeff, you are pretty good, but the absence of talk about the FBI's investigation of the Yellow Cake forgeries suggests to me that their investigation has been folded in with Fitz's Why wouldn't it?

Note also, that just before Fitz was appointed, the FBI had been doing a lot of information gathering at the CIA. I bet that went over big.

Had Kerry won, do you think the Democrats would have investigated the origin of the forgeries that Wilson claims to have debunked, and about which he has been so prescient?

And if you do think they would investigate it, would it set well with you if they were investigated now? You may get your wish.
====================================================
================================================

[Jeff]

it hasn't been covered much but there are FBI agents crawling all over the CIA....at some point I think the niger docs investigation got folded into Fitz's plamegate GJ.

Don't feed my wishful thoughts like that! Though I guess I can always dare to dream.

Plamegate a sting, how rich. We'll see soon indeed.

[windansea]

you sound bitter Jeff

can you handle the truth when it comes out?

[Syl]

I'm not sure Plamegate was as much a sting as an opportunity.

[Jeff]

windandsea - Yes, I'm bitter that the right has not managed to persuade the Bush administration to conduct a full and aggressive investigation of the origin and circulation of the forged Niger documents.

I think I can handle the truth.

[windansea]

it's quite possible the truth will disappoint both sides....but so far the guy who's been caught lying the most is Mr Wilson

his description of the niger docs 8 months before we had them is very troubling

I mispoke won't do it Joe

[Syl]

Will someone tell those conspiracists at emptywheel that 'I heard that too' is not a confirmation?

Anyway. Interesting stuff. Except for the fact those people think the INR is God's gift. No. It was Clinton's gift. Clinton had given State a primary roll in proliferation matters. Wresting authority from the CIA.

And, not to be too blunt, the INR folks are quite PC. The State Dept has always had the problem of identifying with the countries in which they are working, rather than the home country, America. There are many inside jokes about the attitude.

Do we really want proliferation matters handled primariily by an agency which is permeated with the attitude that the foreign countries are usually right and America wrong?

Bush, through Bolton, thought the CIA should be put back in charge.

Now, we see the bureaucratic infighting in a different light. It wasn't Bolton in the China shop. It was resistance to change after the Clinton years and a power thing. The INR was pissed as all heck about the new rules.

But at emptywheel the conspiracy depends on Bolton using WINPAC and ignoring INR because he thinks WINPAC will give him what he wants.

This is a fatal flaw. Not understanding bureaucratic structure, power shifts, and resistance to change. One gets a hint in the whines that well, Bolton wasn't careful enough with source material. GIVE US BACK OUR POWER.

And Bolton, pew, had a dustup with someone at INR. They say holding their noses. The possibility is never considered that maybe the INR guy was a flaming ahole and blocking Bolton from doing his job.

I can see in a situation like this how easy it would be for conflicting intelligence to fall through the cracks because of the infighting, rather than willfulness. I can also see the INR pushing the opposite view of WINPAC just to oppose WINPAC. Make a stink to hurt WINPAC and get their power back.

I just love how they manage to drag everyone in. I mean every name we've ever heard of plus a few we haven't. ALL were involved in a conspiracy somehow.

Some of it sounds plausible. It has to for the conspiracy to be believed.

But what kills conspiracies is not so much what they include, but what they omit. The infighting is one thing, mentioned above.

The other is lack of focus on the investigation itself. Granted, we're focused so much on that, and not so much on inside-the-walls-of-power stuff.

But at least we know 'I heard that too' is not a confirmation of anything. :)

[MJW]

I'm somewhat befuddled by the WINPAC thing; in particular, why more attention wasn't paid to it previously. Plame was supposed to be an CIA "operative," which is to say in the Directorate of Operations, but her own husband's book says she was in WINPAC, which according to the CIA's website is part of the Directorate of Intelligence. Now, I know beer can both taste good and be less filling, but can a CIA employee be under both the DO and the DI?

The lefty website JBG linked to tries to convince us that Plame could be in both CIA divisions, but the conclusion seems to rely on the dubious assumption that a CIA operative in the Counterproliferation Division who is suing the CIA is one of the two CIA employees who claimed they were forced from WINPAC for expressing their doubts about the informant "Curveball."

[windansea]

don't know whether this is relevant now but Powell was on King just now...he stated very firmly that Valerie Plame was not on that memo passed around on Airforce 1

[Syl]

windansea

Good news! No name! Thanks for reporting.

MJW

What I read at ajstrata was that the WINPAC reference by Wilson in his book was probably to protect her clandestine connection.

As for being in both. I don't know. Possible. But there are some clandestine folks at WINPAC I think. No reason there couldn't be analysts on the other side.

She may never have been WINPAC at all.

What this brings up to me is this.

Was Valery's job at the CIA (in her clandestine capacity) ever truly revealed specifically at all until this newsflash tonite?

We've been speaking of her official status, NOC. And also her name Valery Plame. Mention of Brewster Jennings, which may very well be a red herring and associated with the overt WINPAC rather than the directorate.

She may have used a completely different identity than Valery Plame in her work undercover.

I'm not sure what it means if she hasn't really been identified spefically until tonite. If anything.

[Jeff]

Had Kerry won, do you think the Democrats would have investigated the origin of the forgeries that Wilson claims to have debunked, and about which he has been so prescient?

Yes, absolutely. I believe if Democrats controlled any branch of government with investigative power, they would have initiated an investigation into the forgeries. Doesn't it puzzle you that there has been nothing from the REpublican controlled Congress nor the executive branch? Indeed, what do you make of the fact that it was Rockefeller, the ranking Democrats on the SSCI, who asked the FBI to investigate? True, this was the excuse the SSCI used to not look into it themselves, but surely you don't think that came from Rockefeller himself do you? Don't you think the majority would have been able to override the Dems on that?

And if you do think they would investigate it, would it set well with you if they were investigated now?

Yes, absolutely. Why isn't it being investigated by the Republicans right this moment?

You may get your wish.

Oh please oh please oh please let it happen.

[jukeboxgrad]

Syl said "resume padding"

It's possible that Wilson is the original source of "Winpac," and it's something he made up. Note, however, that he's quoting Cannistrano. I believe Cannistrano worked for the CIA for 27 years, and had a senior position in the National Security Council under Reagan. I haven't heard the latest righty talking points about how Cannistrano shouldn't be trusted because he got his job via nepotism.

I think a simpler explanation is that "Winpac" is simply true, and this this does not conflict with the idea that Plame was undercover. I already posted a cite (link) which explains this. As Jeff said: "it might be the case that in fact Plame was both Winpac and DO."

I see that later you say "I think we've all figured out she could do/was doing both," so maybe that means you finally read the cite I provided earlier, and you're no longer suggesting that this all ("Winpac") started with Wilson making things up.

"most people I know wouldn't advocate dropping a criminal charge because the victim of the crime was a sleeze"

Trouble is, this idea (which you suggest is abhorrent) seems to be exactly the subtext of a lot of the anti-Wilson commentary, here and elsewhere.

MJW said: "can a CIA employee be under both the DO and the DI?"

I don't understand why anyone would assume there's some kind of fundamental principle making this unlikely.

Kim said "information about uranium production in Africa is hard to come by"

I guess that's why a BBC article on the subject provides clear and detailed information regarding seven African countries, and Congo isn't one of them.

"Last time around I quit reading your links because they were so biased"

Yes, that commie BBC. Too bad it's the major media outlet for our only major war ally.

[Jimmy D]

"I believe if Democrats controlled any branch of government with investigative power, they would have initiated an investigation into the forgeries."

Can you wait 30 years?

[Jeff]

Jimmy D - That's funny, and maybe true. You don't see how morally bankrupt your comment makes you look, do you?

[MJW]

JBG: MJW said: "can a CIA employee be under both the DO and the DI?"

I don't understand why anyone would assume there's some kind of fundamental principle making this unlikely.

Certainly, it's contrary to what normally happens in hierarchical organizations; and government organizations tend to be more, not less, rigid than private organizations.

[kim]

Well, Jeff, what makes you think the forgeries aren't being investigated right now?

The morally bankrupt one, it would appear to me, is Mark Felt.
========================================

[EricH]

"The origin of the forgeries that Wilson claims to have debunked"

(1) Seymore Hersh alleged in one of his New Yorker pieces that it was ex-CIA officers trying to undermine/embarass the Bush Administration who made the documents.

(2) Interesting that Wilson at one time said he saw the documents and knew they were forgeries because the names were wrong. This was eight months before the US was in possession of the documents.

(3) A group of ex-CIA offices called VIPS (see #1 above) were strong supporters of Wilson and have repeatedly called for CIA analysts to violate the law and reveal how the W.H. manipulated/fixed intelligence.

One + one + one = (possibly) whole lotta trouble for Wilson et al.

[jukeboxgrad]

MJW: "it's contrary to what normally happens"

I agree with your generalizations, but generalizations only get you so far. Female spies are also contrary to some people's idea of "what normally happens."

Aside from the idea that she worked for DO and WINPAC at the same time, it's also entirely possible that she alternated between the two areas, either regularly or occasionally. Interdepartmental transfers are obviously a common occurrence in most organizations, public or private, hierarchical or otherwise.

Cecil: speaking of tough questions you'd rather ignore, here's your reminder about a little piece of business here.