Larry Johnson discredits himself - he ought to keep a civil tongue when speaking of his betters. He also ought to end his campaign to confuse the media:
Congratulations to Victoria Toensing, former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, for plumbing new depths of delusion and crazed fantasies in her latest Washington Post op-ed. Ms. Toensing's piece--Trial in Error--should have been titled, "I Am Ignorant of Basic Facts". She offers up two special gems:
- Valerie Plame was not covert.
- Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Valerie's husband) misled the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status
Mr. Johnson engages in histrionics but never addresses the substance of Ms. Toensing's point about whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Her point is simple - the IIPA has several requirements a CIA agent must meet to be covered under the statute, i.e., "covert":
(4) The term "covert agent" means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or...
This is not complicated - a CIA officer could have classified status without being "covert" under the statute, simply by having failed to meet the service abroad requirement. As to whether Ms. Plame met that requirement (and just what that requirement might be), no evidence has been introduced at this trial to resolve it. However, the gist of the dispute is simple - Joe Wilson's proponents, such as Larry Johnson, insist that "service abroad" can be as simple as flying overseas on official CIA business; Ms. Toensing argues that "service abroad" requires a specific overseas posting. This post notes that other laws make such a distinction, and I was a bit wistful here:
First, if Ms. Plame had been a covert geologist, this issue would be settled - from the US Geological Survey manual:
D. Service abroad means service on or after September 6, 1960, by an employee at a post of duty outside the United States and outside the employee's place of residence if that place of residence is a territory or possession of the United States.
Of course, that is merely suggestive. I do have a specific proposal on the Plame situation, however - per this law, CIA officers get an upward adjustment in their pension for service abroad. Although I assume that specific time and place details of Ms. Plame's service record may be classified, it *may* be possible for her pension record to be reviewed by someone with credibility on both sides of the aisle (I nominate Jeralyn Merritt) to see whether she received credit for service abroad in the five years preceding June 2003.
In addition to his inability or unwillingness to comprehend and address Ms. Toensing's basic point about the distinction between "covert" and "classified", Larry Johnson reveals a failure to follow along at the Libby trial. For Mr. Johnson's edification, a high-speed introduction to February 2007 - let's hope he updates his talking points.
On the subject of Mr. Libby, Johnson wrote this:
She also is ignoring the facts introduced at the Libby trial. We have learned that Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage told various members of the press that Valerie worked for the CIA. In fact Scooter Libby was the one who told Bush press flack, Ari Fleischer, about Valerie's covert status.
Libby told Ari Fleischer, and that is a "basic fact"? That "basic fact" is very much in dispute - Ari Fleischer also said he leaked to John Dickerson but not to Walter Pincus; both men disagree with Ari's recollection, as does Libby with respect to what he told Ari at their lunch on July 7.
And Mr. Johnson is behind the times here:
Let's take up a collection and get Victoria some help with her obvious reading disability. The whole sordid affair got started in early February 2002. Vice President Cheney asked his briefer about the claim on 12 February 2002 and the CIA convened an interagency meeting with Ambassador Joseph Wilson one week later, February 19, 2002.
I'm pretty sure that Mr. Johnson does not need to use the phrase "reading disability" until he chooses to write an autobiography - here is a defense exhibit introduced at the trial, as flagged by Byron York. The gist - the DIA circulated a report on Feb 12 arguing that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger; in response to inquiries from the INR and the DoD (and perhaps on instruction from her superiors), Ms. Plame wrote a memo on Feb 12 endorsing/suggesting the notion that her husband go to Niger so that the CIA could have an official response.
And (per the new defense exhibit) Cheney met with his CIA briefer and had questions about the DIA report on Feb 13. There is a certain logic to this, since Cheney's CIA briefing is normally first thing in the morning, and Cheney (or his staff) would not have gotten to the DIA report until later on the 12th.
My guess - if they are like any other bureaucrats in the world, the CIA did a bit of name-dropping and told folks that the Vice President was interested in this trip. This was arguably true, based on his questions of Feb 13, even though it is clear from the new timeline that his questions did not *initiate* the trip.
If Mr. Johnson could update his talking points, that would be lovely.
MORE: My goodness, does Larry Johnson even read his own posts? Evidently, reporters are slowly catching on to the distinction between "covert" and classified"; Johnson puts on his bright red nose and floppy shoes and tries to confuse the issue in a new post, but he only manages to embarrass himself and annoy me:
Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse, but a reporter from a major news organization told me today that they are still arguing in his/her newsroom about whether Valerie Plame was covert. The journalist who told me this is a talented, smart person but is still confused about the terms "covert", "cover", and "non-official cover". So here's my gift to confused journalists.
A noble undertaking. Johnson cites the same bit of the IIPA we have excerpted above, and then fails to read it! Here we go:
There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA. Zippo!
The remaining category of employee is covert. Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover".
"[T]wo types of people who work at CIA"? Fine, but the two types would have to reflect "classified status" and "non-classified status". As Johnson would note if he read the statute he excerpted, an officer with classified status who has not served abroad in the previous five years is not "covert" under the statute, regardless of whether they are a "NOC", and regardless of whether they have classified status.
I propose my own dichotomy - there are two types of people in the world: those who think Larry Johnson is a partisan hack, and those who think he is a hack.
MORE ON THE IIPA: Folks with access to the Times archives should check the legislative history of the Act for a real laugh. More after the break.
The Act could not be passed in the late 70's under Jimmy Carter; following Reagan's election (along with six new Republican Senators), folks tried against in the early 80's.
The NY Times and other media, as well as civil liberties and free speech advocates, fulminated against the Act. One of their fears was that the press, or private citizens, would be exposed to "gotcha" prosecutions. From the Times:
Unfortunately, to cite a case in The Times's experience, being careful doesn't help decide how to deal with former spies like Edwin Wilson and Frank Terpil.
The Times put together - carefully - stories about how the former agents trained terrorists abroad and engaged in suspicious weapons and technology deals. The stories raised questions about the former spies' connections to the Central Intelligence Agency, whether real or feigned.
At a minimum, these foreign adventures challenged the country's ability to avoid embarrassment by once-trusted employees. The stories brought about other investigations, by Congress and the C.I.A. itself.
But it doesn't seem to matter how much care went into those stories. It doesn't matter how much they have been supported by official investigations. None of that would protect the paper against a wrathful prosecutor armed with the pending bill.
And based on the history of the problem underlying the bill, it was clear that the problem was with CIA agents *stationed* abroad - this is from the court decision lifting Philip Agee's passport:
Philip Agee, an American citizen, currently resides in West Germany. From 1957 to 1968, he was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. He held key positions in the division of the agency that is reponsible (sic) for covert intelligence gathering in foreign countries. In the course of his duties at the agency, Agree received training in clandestine operations, including the methods used to protect the identities of intelligence employees and sources of the United States overseas. He served in undercover assignments abroad and came to know many Government employees and other persons supplying information to the United States. The relationships of many of these people to our Government are highly confidential; many are still engaged in intelligence gathering.
In 1974, Agee called a press confeence (sic) in London to announce his ''campaign to fight the United States C.I.A. wherever it is operating.'' He declared his intent ''to expose C.I.A. officers and agents and to take the measures necessary to drive them out of the countries where they are operating.'' Since 1974, Agee has, by his own assertion, devoted consistent effort to that program, and he has traveled extensively in other countries in order to carry it out. To identify C.I.A. personnel in a particular country, Agee goes to the target country and consults sources in local diplomatic circles whom he knows from his prior service in the United States Government. Agee and his collaborators have repeatedly and publicly identified individuals and organizations located in foreign countries as undercover C.I.A. agents, employees, or sources. The record reveals that the identifications divulge classified information, violate Agee's express contract not to make any public statements about agency matters without prior clearance by the agency, have prejudiced the ability of the United States to obtain intelligence, and have been followed by episodes of violence against the persons and organizations identified.
So, it was agents stationed abroad that had two problems - they were identifiable by the locals, and they were not always subject to the police protection of a sympathetic government. A CIA officer based in the US would not have these problems.
FWIW, Gary Hart of CO was one of the Senators voting against the IIPA on civil liberties grounds; he now supports the Fitzgerald investigation. Times change and the political winds shift. No problem.
LAST GASP: If a THOMAS sleuth could scratch into the Congressional record, something more helpful might be available. Hints to the legislative history are in this CRS paper prepared on Oct 3, 2003. The lead, to aid Googlers:
In 1982, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was enacted into law as an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947. This Act was a response to concerns of members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and others in Congress “about the systematic effort by a small group of Americans, including some former intelligence agency employees, to disclose the names of covert intelligence agents.”
Help!
Sem
They have been consistently careless about putting our troops in harm's way.
The purpose of troops is not to engage the enemy, but to act as neutral peacekeepers, I take it.
What country do you live in, btw?
Posted by: Syl | February 21, 2007 at 06:26 PM
PeterUK
Hell,H&R,you Britney Spears?
You can't prove that I'm not.
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 06:29 PM
"They have been consistently careless about putting our troops in harm's way."..
Syl, I'm glad yu answered that. Everytime I hear that I can't understand that stupidity. Let's add firemen and cope--"The authorities are always putting firemen and copes on harm's way". See, Seman, how idiotic that is?
That's their job.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 06:32 PM
**copS...not Copes...********
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 06:33 PM
You can't prove that I'm not.
That's not what you told me in Nantucket!
Posted by: Jane | February 21, 2007 at 06:45 PM
Syl:
The purpose of troops is not to engage the enemy, but to act as neutral peacekeepers, I take it.
Mark Steyn on the Corner earlier today:
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 06:48 PM
Jane:
That's not what you told me in Nantucket!
You made me feel pretty.
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 06:49 PM
What I Didn’t Find In Africa…The Sequel
Like a sequel to a lousy movie, Wilson’s first trip to Niger didn’t get much attention. Little is known about his 1999 trip. But by piecing together what we do know, maybe we can connect some dots. For starters, the first trip, like the 2002 trip, was made at his wife’s recommendation. And like the first one, no report was written.
Page 39 of the SSCI - “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (Redacted). The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region (Redacted). Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about (Redacted) during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.”
The SSCI doesn’t shed any light on why Wilson took that first trip, but Wilson tells Wolf Blitzer on July 14, 2005 that it was uranium-related.
“BLITZER: What would have been so bad if your wife would have recommended you to go to Niger for this investigation.”
”WILSON: Of course, from my perspective, it wouldn't have been bad at all. This was a legitimate request to answer a national security question. I was well qualified to do so. Indeed as the Senate Select Committee report says, I had made a trip in 1999 to Niger to look into other uranium-related matters, so I was well known to the CIA.”
What happened in Niger in 1999 that prompted the CIA to send Wilson? Well for one thing, the President of Niger, General Ibrahim Bare Mainassara was murdered in a coup d’etat in early April, 1999. This coup was carried out by the head of his own Elite Presidential Guard, Daouda Malan Wanke. Wanke’s military spokesman Ibrahim Assane Mayaki (where have we heard that name before) called this murder an “unfortunate accident.” Mayaki, who was the Prime Minister under Mainassara’s regime, was re-appointed to the same position by Wanke.
Who else traveled to Niger in 1999? Christopher Hitchens of Slate.
“In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.”
And from The Times Of India, AQ Khan traveled to Niger in the same month of the same year that Zahawie did!
“We left Dubai for Khartoum on 21 February 1999. The education minister of Sudan received the group and we were lodged at the State Guest House. After making a short stopover in a Nigerian city we reached Timbuktu on 24 February 1999. After spending a couple of days we were on our way back and our first stop was Niamey, capital of Niger.”
Zahawie and AQ Khan both traveled to Niger in 1999, as did Joe Wilson on a uranium-related matter. Evidently Wilson’s mission was a failure…or was it? Let’s take a look at his second trip to Niger also on a uranium-related matter in February 2002.
Page 36 of the SSCI begins with a chapter called Niger, and states “Reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Niger and Iraq first came to the attention of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) on October 15, 2001.” The report claimed that the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999 and had been approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. At the time all IC analysts believed the report to be limited and lacking in detail. CIA, DIA, and DOE all thought the report possible with INR the only agency regarding the report as “highly dubious.” Only the CIA wrote a finished intelligence product on the report (Senior Executive
Intelligence Brief [SEIB], Iraq.• Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts, October 18, 2001).”
It’s very possible that this initial report was in fact the real deal, tipping off the IC that their collective asses were about to be hung out to dry, so to speak. Here’s what I think.
Please refer to page 36 of the SSCI. It begins by claiming that “reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Iraq and Niger first came to the Intelligence Community on October 15, 2001. The report stated that the agreement had been in negotiations since at least early 1999 and was approved by the state court of Niger in late 2000
Now read what the CIA wrote when they published their SEIB on October 18, 2001, concerning this Italian report.
According to a foreign government service, Niger as of early this year planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq under an agreement concluded late last year.
Iraq and Niger had been negotiating the shipment since at least early 1999, but the
state court of Niger only this year approved it, according to the service.
Now either the foreign government service (SISMI) is so incompetent, they didn’t realize what year it was, or the CIA is lying when they claim they received that report on October 15, 2001. If the agreement was concluded in late 2000 and the state court of Niger “only this year approved it,” the CIA had to receive that report in 2000!
The IC didn’t receive another report until four months later, plenty of time to procure forged documents to conceal their malfeasance and/or complicity. Wilson was told by Mayaki that an Iraqi delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. Wilson lied about in his op-ed. Think about that!
Posted by: Rocco | February 21, 2007 at 06:53 PM
That's one of the best theories on it I've read, Rocco.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 07:00 PM
Thanks clarice
Posted by: Rocco | February 21, 2007 at 07:05 PM
Jeff, honey
Don't you by your own vaunted principles think that Toensing should have disclosed her close relationship with the defense when she published? It's not that she should have pretended to be impartial; it's that she did.
Cart.Horse.
She has a close relationship with defense precisely because of her knowledge that the IIPA did not apply.
Nice try though.
Posted by: Syl | February 21, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Think about this...
Valerie Plame is outed in '94 and known to Russian and Cuban Intel communities.
Val "outs herself" to Joe before they are married.
And, so, MAYBE...there was a Plan, including....
Joe becomes a consultant (paid??) to Kerry 2004 campaign.
Joe wants to help Kerry win
Joes doesn't like Condi's remarks about status.
Joe wants "recognition" from the trip.
Joe wants Val to be able to retire sooner with better benefits.
Joe conspires with some Bush haters....."How can we get Bush/Cheney?"
Joe conspires with Valerie to "use her outing as a way to accomplish "the Plan."
Joe writes op-ed pieces, goes on TV shows to covertly promote "the Plan."
Fitz believes he is "doing justice" to help Joe and Val...
And the saga may just be in its infancy...
Posted by: Jim | February 21, 2007 at 07:14 PM
"You can't prove that I'm not."
Where's your mole?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2007 at 07:17 PM
Where's your mole?
Which one?
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 07:30 PM
The one we had a name for.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2007 at 07:42 PM
again...how was super duper secret knockworst Val outed?
In chronological order
during her 3rd date with Joe
when she suggested him for Niger trip
when CIA did not require Joe to sign non disclosure
when Joe lied to Kristoff and Pincus
Armitage blabbing to Novak
Harlow blabbing to Novak
Wilson blabbing to Corn
voila....but lets blame the 21 year old on the beach
Posted by: windansea | February 21, 2007 at 07:13 AM
When Plame-Wilson donated $1000 to the Gore campaign listing Brewster-Jennings as her employer
When Plame-Wilson spoke to Kristof and Pincus (re:filings)
When she suggested Wilson for his 1999 trip to Niger
When she attended the ATC party at the Turkish Embassy in Washington DC in Feb 1997
When she gave an interview with Vanity Fair detailing mostly self-serving or false information
When she was given official cover at the US Embassy-Athens in her first assignment
//this is off the top of my head. pete says were gullible, but he's the one who believes someone from the Iran-Conta mess
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | February 21, 2007 at 07:57 PM
The one we had a name for.
Is that a mouse in your pocket?
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 08:26 PM
You showbusiness types are so fickle.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2007 at 09:00 PM
I never said I was Britney.
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 09:14 PM
To you
(to Jane is another matter. If I was in Nantucket, which I am not saying I was)
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 09:16 PM
Madonna?
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 09:16 PM
H&R,
I hope you are not implying that Jane
was once a young girl from Nantucket.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 21, 2007 at 09:20 PM
::cutting and running::
Posted by: hit and run | February 21, 2007 at 09:38 PM
Now what on earth would be wrong with once being a young girl from Nantucket?
Posted by: Jane | February 21, 2007 at 09:44 PM
There was a young man from Nantucket,who bought as harp just to pluck it,it sounded so bad and it drove him half mad,in the end he simply said,"I'm not bothering with that anymore.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2007 at 09:52 PM
All this talk of girls from Nantucket reminds me of my favorite from Florence King.
Tipsy rake: I could sure use a little p---y.
Florence: So could I, mine's as big as a bucket.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 09:52 PM
I love Florence King.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 09:54 PM
I gave my brother's m-i-l "Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady", not having read any of her work outside NR, and not knowing she'd been a "writer of erotic fiction". Thankfully, that dear elderly lady is broad-minded.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 10:02 PM
"Erotic fiction"? I've only read her hilarious essays.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 10:03 PM
When she was younger, she claims she wrote porn for a living, and gives examples in the book.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I found http://www.cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Classified_Leaks.htm>this interesting tidbit while doing Tom's homework assignment.
Only Morison alone might say so—and he was pardoned by Bill Clinton (who also vetoed the “Shelby Amendment” anti-leaks law in the FY01 Intelligence Authorization Act), as our past President was just leaving office last year.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/wp021701.html>Clinton pardons Morison
President Bill Clinton ignored a recommendation from the CIA last month when he pardoned former Navy intelligence analyst Samuel L. Morison, the only government official ever convicted of leaking classified information to the media.
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2007 at 10:10 PM
It's a funny book, but there is a little too much discussion by her female relatives about the delicate Upton family womb. I said "claims" above because some of her story is almost too wacky to be true.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 10:12 PM
I thought that book was really funny.
She's an atheist, gun toting, pro smoking lesbian. I expect growing upin the south when she did must have been a tribulation for both her and her family.
One of her typical remarks: “I'd rather rot on my own floor than be found by a bunch of bingo players in a nursing home"
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Charlie,
I actually posted this first on the other thread but to update, in my readings on military history, I don't know when it started but Civil War soldiers always referred and said that they had "seen the elephant" after they had their first taste of combat.
Posted by: JimO | February 21, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Flo King is wonderful, but I'm wondering if age or DC or some such is catching up with her. She wrote a glowing review of Olbermann's imbecilities in the American Spectator a couple of months ago. Had to read it twice to make sure she was serious.
Sadly, she was.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 21, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I think she is quite old.I'll have to read it and see.
Early on she wrote the best analysis of Bill Clinton I've ever seen.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I'd heard somewhere that she'd left Fredricksburg for the Seattle area.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Barney, was it the style or the substance of KO that she liked?
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Sue's fixed link....for the Pete's and Jeff's
President Bill Clinton ignored a recommendation from the CIA last month when he pardoned former Navy intelligence analyst Samuel L. Morison, the only government official ever convicted of leaking classified information to the media.
It so fittingly Clinton --he likes eavesdropping -Eschelon,-pardons classified leakers and has Sandy NSAdvisor "Socks and scissors on docs" Berger smuggling, destroying classified and doing dead drops for him, light on Saddam (could care less if pilots are routinely targeted patrolling the no-fly), light on terror acts, no interest in Sudan's offer to pluck Osama - no interest in Al Queda - that's the bridged version.
So let's threaten ABC with revoking their broadcasting license?
Talk about Nazi's.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 21, 2007 at 10:43 PM
At least Morison did his time.
I forget, why did they threaten ABC?
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/IB70.cfm>Heritage Foundation
I have forgotten what the homework assignment was. My eyes have glazed over. Tom, what was the question?
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2007 at 11:10 PM
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000301.html
Posted by: tryggth | February 22, 2007 at 01:30 AM
Fitzgerald opted to let them all off the hook because he couldn't guarantee acquitals
Can't say he didn't try...
Posted by: Tom Maguire | February 22, 2007 at 03:00 PM