Well, SOMEONE Said "Operative"

I'm way late with this, but let me take up an interesting tidbit from the Armitage interview (story, transcript) last weekend in which he discussed the Plame leak (emphasis added):

ARMITAGE: They're not words on which I disagree. I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me. There was no ill-intent on my part and I had never seen ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo. The only reason I knew a "Mrs. Wilson," not "Mrs. Plame," worked at the agency was because I saw it in a memo. But I don't disagree with her words to a large measure.

     BLITZER:  Normally in memos they don't name covert operatives?

     ARMITAGE:  I have never seen one named.

     BLITZER:  And so you assumed she was, what, just an analyst over at the CIA?

     ARMITAGE:  Not only assumed it, that's what the message said, that she was publicly chairing a meeting.

BLITZER: So, when you told Robert Novak that Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador's wife, worked at the CIA, and she was involved somehow in getting him this trip to Africa to look for the enriched uranium, if there were enriched uranium going to Iraq, you simply assumed that she was not a clandestine officer of the CIA.

ARMITAGE: Well, even Mr. Novak has said that he used the word "operative" and misused it. No one ever said "operative." And I not only assumed it, as I say, I've never seen a covered agent's name in a memo. However, that doesn't take away from what Mrs. Plame said, it was foolish, yeah. Sure it was.

Well, back on Oct 1 2003 Novak's explanation if his use of the word was this:

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

Josh Marshall and others have hooted at this, but here is my Unsolved Mystery - why did Andrea Mitchell use the word "operative" in exactly the same context on the same day Novak chatted with Armitage?  From the transcript of Ms. Mitchell's July 8, 2003 broadcast as she discusses culpability for the "16 Words" and responsibility for the Wilson trip to Niger (emp. added):

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

If Novak wants to insist he simply had in mind a hack political operator, well, that is his story and I suppose he is sticking with it.  But it is clear that Ms. Mitchell had "covert operatives" specifically in mind, and it is an uncanny coincidence that she and Bob Novak got that genesis of the Plame trip on the same day.  (However, let's note that Ms. Mitchell sometimes insists she did not actually get the specific Plame leak.)

Hmm.  Ms. Mitchell cites "people at the CIA" in her report, and Novak made clear that he chatted with some CIA contacts at some point in his research, so it is certainly possible they shared a source who gave them both the word "operative".

Or maybe Novak simply hit upon the Mitchell broadcast while riffling through Lexis as he wrote his piece a few days later - do old school journos do that?

Well - the word "operative" was out there independent of Novak, but maybe not independent of Armitage.  Did we mention that Colin Powell was a guest at Ms. Mitchells wedding to Alan Greenspan?  Meant to.  In fact, I meant to recycle this from an old post about what might have been happening at State in June-July 2003:

Although he did not emphasize the specific Niger/uranium piece, Colin Powell was the public face of the Administration in presenting the WMD case against Saddam to the United Nations; the charge [by Wilson] that "the Administration twisted the intelligence" should have cut Powell as deeply as Cheney, so a State Dept push-back would not be utterly unreasonable.  Add in that Andrea Mitchell covered State, had Colin Powell as a guest at her wedding, and claimed to have known about Ms. Plame prior to the publication of the Novak column, and it should not have been too hard for diligent investigators to wonder whether folks at State had blabbed about Ms. Plame and then covered it up.

And why wouldn't they blab?  The INR memo which circulated at State made it clear (rightly or wrongly, probably rightly) that Ms. Plame was involved in sending her hubby on the trip and gave no hint that her CIA role was classified.

Raw Story has lots more Armitage bashing.  And yes, I need to let it go - no one will ever ask Ms. Mitchell about this again.

Comments

[Jeff]

why did Andrea Mitchell use the word "operative" in exactly the same context on the same day Novak chatted with Armitage?

Gee, who else did Mitchell chat with on the same day Novak chatted with Armitage? Oh that's right! It was Scooter Libby, who sat at a desk in OVP talking with her on the phone with the NIE - the NIE that everyone in the world except Libby, Cheney and Bush thought was classified - open in front of him, evidently walking her through it.

And who else did Libby talk with that day about the NIE? Judith Miller! And what else did he tell Judith Miller that day? That Wilson's wife worked at the CIA!

All that said, Mitchell claims she had no knowledge that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA before Novak's column. Plus, perhaps more importantly, she appears to source the information about CIA operatives to CIA sources, doesn't she?

I promise, if I ever get a chance, I will ask Andrea Mitchell about this.

But I agree with you in not believing Novak's explanation for why he used the word "operative" just like I don't believe his explanation for how he got the name "Valerie Plame".

[capitano]

And yes, I need to let it go - no one will ever ask Ms. Mitchell about this again.

Don't be so sure. I understand there will be a new hombre in town soon...one who can get the truth out of these stonewalling journalistas.

[Clarice]

Mitchell has CIA and FBI sources better than Novak's I think..She broke a big story today on PRouty in which an intel official laughable claims there's no CI implications in this story at all.

Let me know when you find someone outside our crack intel services who falls for that one.

[Clarice]

Here--"A senior U.S. official familiar with the case says there is no evidence she was a spy and noted that the CIA and FBI have a good record in prosecuting spies, particularly in their own agencies. He says her role was limited.

“This is not John Dillinger or Reilly Ace of Spies,” said the official. “She took an illegal shortcut to the American dream, then she made some inappropriate computer searches. At this point, there is no reason to treat this as a counterintelligence case. There is NO allegation she had ever ties to Hezbollah. You can’t let suspicions get ahead of the facts.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21796035

Let's farm the entire operation out to Amazon or some other company with brains.

[Clarice]

Here--"A senior U.S. official familiar with the case says there is no evidence she was a spy and noted that the CIA and FBI have a good record in prosecuting spies, particularly in their own agencies. He says her role was limited.

“This is not John Dillinger or Reilly Ace of Spies,” said the official. “She took an illegal shortcut to the American dream, then she made some inappropriate computer searches. At this point, there is no reason to treat this as a counterintelligence case. There is NO allegation she had ever ties to Hezbollah. You can’t let suspicions get ahead of the facts.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21796035

Let's farm the entire operation out to Amazon or some other company with brains.

[GMax]

Days grow ever shorter not longer, but as Yogi says it aint over till its over. Keep voting.

http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>Vote Jmax!

[Jane]

She's doing great GMax. I'm still voting everyday as I'm sure everyone else is as well. We just don't talk about it as much. And thanks to Rick for being steadfast in posting the link every morning.

[paladin2]

"she will never be asked about this"

Hey, I am still hoping for a retrial

[MayBee]

My guess would be that Novak has a CIA source that never came forward, so Novak hasn't said beans about him. I believe Novak, though, when he says he never thought she was an undercover operative. All of the evidence presented at trial indicates that CIA employees talked about her without ever mentioning such a thing.

[RichatUF]

Clarice-

The puzzlebox gets more complicated

I looked over at AT and only found the Moran piece with a small update from you regarding the NBC piece.

I was curious if the Blackwater story ties into this. Use a combination of FBI investigations and leaks to the press to wreck the company and what they do in Iraq.

It seems possible if this scandal is anything like the Gitmo spy scandal a few years back. IIRC there were 7 implicated, CPT Yee being one-same problem-the military recruited from radical Islamic groups, didn't screen the backgrounds of those recruited, and gave those implicated wide access-Yee especially, seeing as how he was a convert from the Saudi Gulf War Conversion Program and trained in among other places, Syria, as an iman.

Another thought I had was how involved she was with the interrogation transcript leaks that were concurrent with Joe Wilson's "16 Words" tour. I remember that in June 03 WaPo was making a big deal about the interrogations of al Qeada and Iraqi HVT's at the time, which stated that there was "no cooperatation" and the actual interrogation was showed more lawyerly, nuanced declarations ["no formal alliance" or "no bayat" seems to come to mind].

[RichatUF]

Also: No Mitchell, No Peace!!!

Armitage can claim he was drunk, worked for Mitchell.

[boris]

the NIE that everyone in the world except Libby, Cheney and Bush thought was classified

Yes THAT NIE, containing no intel of use to enemies but acquits the administration charged with using false justification for the Iraq invasion. Which Bush and Cheney can lawfully declassify to discredit fals accusations in the media from the Wilsons.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I promise, if I ever get a chance, I will ask Andrea Mitchell about this.

You ask, but you don't get answers. You all but put the ball on the tee for Valerie, and selected the club. Yet she refused to swing at your explanation for her little Feb. 12th-13th memo problem.

Care to hazard a guess to why she didn't want to talk about it, Jeff?

[clarice]

Rich, there was some IT problem getting my blog posted and when the editor returned, someone else at AT had posted the other blog.

I don't remember the interrogation transcript leaks, but would doubt she'd do that. I suspect the agency might consider reviewing all tapes of interrogations she conducted because she may have deliberately mistranslated, and I suppose that she did pass on anything significant she picked up there and in the agencies' files to Syria.

[kim]

Fore!
====

[Sue]

Newsweek has announced the counterpart to Kos. Karl Rove.

[centralcal]

Sue, you beat me to it! Well, that should make things interesting.

I think I do hear some head's exploding (giggle) - over on the left.

[Topsecretk9]

I was more taken with this from Armitage

Not only assumed it, that's what the message said, that she was publicly chairing a meeting.

myself.

[centralcal]

BTW - wasn't there some recent postings all about Rove's love/hate relationship with the blosgosphere?

Well, maybe now we know what might be the root of this.

[Jane]

Sue, Centralcal, where did you see that?

[centralcal]

Go to Newsbusters, Jane.

[TM]

From Jeff:

But I agree with you in not believing Novak's explanation for why he used the word "operative" just like I don't believe his explanation for how he got the name "Valerie Plame".

Hmm, if *I* had the intellectual market share on the left that Jeff does, and if *I* thought Christy Hardin Smith was interested in proving Armitage was a liar, I might let the Libby connection slide long enough to point out to her that Andrea Mitchell's use of "covert operatives" certainly suggests Novak, Armitage, and others may be lying.

Libby, OTOH, already had a trial, and Fitzgerald had no interest in discussing his chat with Ms. Mitchell. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The less satisfying but more filling explanation is that both Novak and Mitchell chatted with some senior CIA type who knew her as "Plame" from back in the day. Mitchell (in this pure as driven snow version) did not know enough to ask about Ms. Wilson specifically, so she got the "sent by covert operatives" version. Novak, having chatted with Armitage, asked about Wilson's wife, got the Plame name, and ignored the covert caveat. OK, why did Novak believe Armitage and ignore both Harlow and the deep background CIA guy about her status? Good question.

Or was the deep background CIA guy Harlow himself? Odd, since Harlow insisted he never said Plame was covert. Well, maybe he said Wilson was sent by other covert operatives but not Plame.

Full maniacs (and link followers) will remember that Reuters got this on July 8, from "a US intelligence official":

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

The baseline version of the story was clearly available. Mitchell added "covert operatives", claiming CIA sources; Novak added Plame's name, claiming Armitage and Rove, with CIA supplementation that did or did not precede his column (from the Oct 1 article, but I assume he chatted with more than Harlow before his July piece).

[RichatUF]

Gee, who else did Mitchell chat with on the same day Novak chatted with Armitage? Oh that's right! It was Scooter Libby...

Curious-If St.Fitz had this all nailed down [a "slamdunk" maybe], he seemed incurious as to what Mrs. Greenspan was going to say on the witness stand. I didn't follow any links (sorry, lazy, sortof in a hurry) but I though the speculation at the time that it was Greiner that was filling in some of the details for Armitage et al.

I still don't get the hang up with the NIE-Libby was convicted of obstruction and perjury-not for "leaking" the NIE [too bad bafflegab isn't a crime-or is it, in Fitzlaw].

[clarice]

Incurious? Desperate to keep her off the stand, in fact.

[Jeff]

The baseline version of the story was clearly available.

I think that's right, and it makes it very difficult to try to pin down exactly who communicated that widely used talking point to whom.

That said, I suppose it is in Armitage's favor that when the Woodward tape emerged, which Armitage presumably never expected, Armitage did indeed refer to Wilson's wife as an analyst on it. On the other hand, it might be imagined that someone like Armitage with as deep ties in the intel community and with such a nosy reputation on these matters would make it his business to know who was covert, such as VWilson, and who was not.

I am glad, in any case, that we seem to have set aside any dispute that she was, in fact, covert in the real-world sense of the term. (A very strong case can be made that she was also covert in the peculiar sense required by IIPA, of course, and we know that Fitzgerald, among others, made that determination. Novak's book is deeply weakened by his now-dated argument that Plame was not covert in the first sense, and so clearly not covert in the second that the IIPA could not have been violated. It is valuable to learn, however, that his view of the matter seems to hve been shaped by Toensing's. And it's been conclusively established that she was wrong to assert that the prosecutor must have known that Plame was not covert under IIPA, so her conclusion that there could have been no prosecution and the attendant argument that there should have been no investigation have been conclusively refuted.)

I seriously doubt Novak got that information from Harlow, because there is no love lost there and there's no reason Novak would not have told that. Novak did talk with Harlow before his July 14 column, but he got Plame info from him only after talking with Rove, which came after Armitage. In favor of the notion that Novak had another CIA source for the Plame info is the fact that he told Joe Wilson that when he talked to Wilson in July 2003.

[kim]

Obviously, much more chatting all around than Jeff can fit into the delusion.
======================================

[clarice]

Jeff: am glad, in any case, that we seem to have set aside any dispute that she was, in fact, covert in the real-world sense of the term. (A very strong case can be made that she was also covert in the peculiar sense required by IIPA, of course, and we know that Fitzgerald, among others, made that determination.
Oh, Brother. In no way do I concede she was covert--not "the real-world sense" whatever that is nor the IIPA sense. Indeed, as far as I know the CIA's GC is still pondering the latter as he never responded to Hoekstra;s inquiry.

At best, she was in some pre IIPA CIA definition of no significance to this case whatsoever.

[Sue]

Jeff,

How about not pulling a Valerie and answering the question posed to you http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=4989&id=90060926>here?

We were rooting for you hoping she would respond. She really didn't answer too many questions posed to her, except the softball ones. Is she think of running for political office?

[MayBee]

Sue- is that the right link?

[wisnity]

Armitage was the lead guy in the time travel trip. He's big. Rice, Bush, Armitage and others used the dvice to go forward in time, but, for some reason Powell was skipped and he's paying like Gore kinda pays. Plame and others at CIA are jealous of the NASA Air Force time travel and the ones who used their time travel clearance to start golf, golf founders. CIA started time travel around 96, when they took out the 'truth shall make ye free' thing because they were using time travel. CIA and State time travellers use their clearance to get and keep jobs. They leak themselves to President's, etc. to move up. It's very common in US government overseas empployees to use security issues to 'make' someone like the Presidnet and get what they want through the higher clearance.

Air Force astronauts started golfas their evil for theirtime travel. CIA looked more toward jobs and extending employment into the future. This can be done various ways and some involve genetics(it's needed for people who time travel) and extending employment for generations into the future, which, if you check, is considered a foreign intelligence penetration. Legacies are always a problem here. Why would someone be hired over another all family time travel and employtment history considered? the answer would be to go with the plan, which may be illegal, but is not noticed by the agency or military group hiring. It's a time travel conspiracy and everyone knows that doesn't happen.

The guy who did the UFOcover up was named Joe Wilson.

[kim]

Sue, that's the great BDS link if you scroll down.
=========================

[Sue]

Where the hell did that come from? No.

Maybe http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/11/well-someone-sa.html#comment-90060926>this will work.

[Sue]

Okay, that is the correct link. Sorry. I know what I did now. I linked to Patrick's name instead of the post. I didn't know Patrick had a blog. I'm off to check it out.

[PeterUK]

"why did Andrea Mitchell use the word "operative" in exactly the same context on the same day Novak chatted with Armitage? "

In this age of hyperbole,when even the Rat Catcher is called a Rodent Operative,why not?

[PeterUK]

I see Captain Incontravertable is back,sounds like a junior Al Gore.

[Sara]

On the selection of Rove to "balance" Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas, I can't stop laughing. I think it absolutely delightful. Of course, Malkin, with her barely camouflaged BDS, is full of sour grapes, which delights me even more.

[clarice]

It's my annual get everything tested and checked time, and something interesting--my doctors' offices no longer have Time or Newsweek. They are putting out interesting books to read--largely gardening and tracel but oh so much more fun to while away the time.

[GMAX]

OT afternoon link

I am flying to UNC tomorrow and the game is tomorrow evening so I wont be able to link again tomorrow but perhaps you can find this one again:

http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/public/women/vote.aspx>JMAX!!!

[Sara]

Barry Bonds INDICTED for perjury and obstruction of justice.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Oh heck, I'll be a good sport and help Jeff out:

Jeff Lomonaco says: October 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 am

Ms. Wilson,

....just to confirm, the call your subordinate received from the OVP was on February 12, 2002, correct? And you then heard from Cheney’s briefer about the VP’s own questions about the Niger story on February 13, 2002, right? Had you heard from Cheney’s briefer before received the briefer’s tasking of that date, which again was entered into evidence at Libby’s trial.

Thanks a lot.

Now, why do you think she twice refused to touch your politely asked question, Jeff?

[Sara]

Patrick, wasn't there also a request from Defense that pre-dated the OVP?

[boris]

it might be imagined that someone like Armitage with as deep ties in the intel community and with such a nosy reputation on these matters would make it his business to know who was covert

Borderline stupid.

The Deputy Sec. of State does not have access to the identities of covert operatives. The Deputy Sec. of State does not want access to the identities of covert operatives.

The identities of covert operatives do not get bandied about in memos passed around the Dept. of State or Air Force One. If that happens by "accident" it would be a colossal FUBAR. In which case the onus is on the FUBARer.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

That appears to be correct Sara, because in her memo of Feb 13th, to the embassy in Niger, trying to sell her hubby's trip to them, she seems to be saying that the intelligence agencies are asking for better info. And adds that the VP just asked too.

Which sure looks like she's talking about the request to the CIA briefer by Cheney earlier on the 13th.

[RichatUF]

PeterUK-

In this age of hyperbole,when even the Rat Catcher is called a Rodent Operative,why not?

Well I was thinking it was the Grey Goose-or as I call it-PRECIOUS. I have some, right now...

Jeff-

I think that's right, and it makes it very difficult to try to pin down exactly who communicated that widely used talking point to whom.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...seigh...

I'm drinking so my next comments might not be totally within the lanes, but they might shed some light on those sorts of questions [archive link]; moreover, I'm going to include links and they are from memory, not bookmarked. I also read her book and was unimpressed.

wisnity-

Plame and others at CIA are jealous of the NASA Air Force time travel and the ones who used their time travel clearance to start golf, golf founders.

Fascinating-Stargate. I'm more of a fan of the TV show than I am of the movie. If the movie had a better military advisor, I think it would have been a stronger piece. I've only seen this reference one other place...curious.

[Ann]

Can anyone tell me which thread the debate blog will be on?

[Elliott]

Ann,

I'll be blogging the debate on the Hillary Hatred thread.

[Tom Maguire]

I am glad, in any case, that we seem to have set aside any dispute that she was, in fact, covert in the real-world sense of the term. (A very strong case can be made that she was also covert in the peculiar sense required by IIPA, of course, and we know that Fitzgerald, among others, made that determination.

LOL - quel drollery. Or maybe it is just my Barack-like ability to gloss over differences and bring people together. I suppose if the CIA wants to hold their breath and insist she was operationally covert it is hard to prove them wrong (although their security is a joke, and Abraham Lincoln addressed this with his old joke - how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?).

Hhowever, I still don't think she was covered by the IIPA and I still think Fitzgerald glossed that point rather than nailed it - I am still hung up on her pension.

[hit and run]

OK, a couple of things. Don't forget, Val wasn't IIPA covert.

She had covertiness (vote if you are so led)

Second, I really, really respect Jeff. He largely predated my presence here -- but all the same, he more than anyone or anything else has cause me to build the hit and run brand, rather than switch to a reality-based identity.

[RichatUF]

Jeff-

That said, I suppose it is in Armitage's favor that when the Woodward tape emerged, which Armitage presumably never expected, Armitage did indeed refer to Wilson's wife as an analyst on it. On the other hand, it might be imagined that someone like Armitage with as deep ties in the intel community and with such a nosy reputation on these matters would make it his business to know who was covert, such as VWilson, and who was not.

Never expected, I suppose the rumor I've heard that whispering noxious gossip in the morning over heavy breakfest isn't true. Maybe Armitage didn't see the tape recorder as he was getting droopy eyed over his eggs and bacon. How about that shit!

I am glad, in any case, that we seem to have set aside any dispute that she was, in fact, covert in the real-world sense of the term. (A very strong case can be made that she was also covert in the peculiar sense required by IIPA, of course, and we know that Fitzgerald, among others, made that determination. Novak's book is deeply weakened by his now-dated argument that Plame was not covert in the first sense, and so clearly not covert in the second that the IIPA could not have been violated. It is valuable to learn, however, that his view of the matter seems to hve been shaped by Toensing's. And it's been conclusively established that she was wrong to assert that the prosecutor must have known that Plame was not covert under IIPA, so her conclusion that there could have been no prosecution and the attendant argument that there should have been no investigation have been conclusively refuted.)

Dull, she was "covert", you win-the CIA has decided not to bother responding to Congressional inquires to clear it up, so maybe in the end it wasn't important. Fitzgerald didn't think so because he didn't bother to charge anyone regarding it.

I seriously doubt Novak got that information from Harlow, because there is no love lost there and there's no reason Novak would not have told that. Novak did talk with Harlow before his July 14 column, but he got Plame info from him only after talking with Rove, which came after Armitage. In favor of the notion that Novak had another CIA source for the Plame info is the fact that he told Joe Wilson that when he talked to Wilson in July 2003.

Greiner figures in here somewhere. I wonder what sort of Who's Who could have made Novak think that printing "Valerie Plame" wouldn't have been a big deal [or big deal, actually naming names, and getting the story]. I wonder why Armitage would have whispered it like some dirty pillow talk in the DC set.

And yeah! there is a debate-Hillary! and the 6 Democrats...The Wicked Witch of New York and the 6 Empty Suits

[Topsecretk9]

Yeah, Hit -- Jeff has his moments, but he really is pretty toppish drawer, even though he once called me "Schmucky" - Moi? Can you believe it?

[Jeff]

Patrick and Sue

Look, the simple fact of the matter is, as I said to someone the other day, Plame is not a plameologist. She's not invested in each and every detail the way the maniacs are. So it's not shocking that she doesn't get the significance and meaning of these super-weedy questions. There's no great evasiveness on her part that I could see - and evidence of that fact is that when she did respond directly, half the time her answer showed that she didn't quite get the question, which is all the less surprising given the speed involved in the format.

On a different note, you all don't seem to see the contradiction in your obsession with the CIA not responding to Robert Novak or Hoekstra about Plame and IIPA. Once you accept that the definition of "covert agent" under IIPA is not determined by the CIA's ordinary notion of covertness, then it's neither here nor there what the CIA has to say about Plame's status under IIPA. (The same goes, by the way, for Tom's obsession with Plame's pension records.) That determination is up to others according to the legislative definition of covertness under IIPA and the interpretation of that definition by the courts and so forth.

[sy]

Bush's brain was not liked by foreigners. The Plame thing was just to use CIA and Plame and everybody else to screw him.

Plame was in trouble and the best way out for her was IIPA. So, who decided IIPA? That was part of the plan. Fitz wouldn't prosecute Plame or recuse himself because he was an expert at IIPA running spies with orgs harvard(like harvard, not harvard). IIPA is not just for CIA. Plame violated IIPA and now she's been cleared by DoJ.

Plame is not stupid, she's acting.

Plame's IIPA is not just for CIA agents it's an issue for government employees who work overseas and need protection when they return to the US. Plame has a problem with protection. She has this problem because she blew this for other people after Ames. She did that on purpose, so she has a thing for protection. Plame' status under IIPA was the issue because she was afraid of this issue because she violated IIPA. Fitz wouldn't prosecute.

Covert agent can be anyone. Covert agent under CIA can mean someone other than CIA(IIPA by necssity, Ames and Plame, may be defined by no CIA access or definition because CIA, Ames and Plame, is the reason for the IIPA) . Covert agent or IIPA is not defined by CIA or legislation or the courts. IIPA is defined under DoD. DIA has it's own defintion of IIPA and 'informants.' CIA now works at DoD/NSA and soon operations will be with DIA. IIPA was an issue because of this and where is CIA now? They are following an old program, just like Plame, just like Ames.

Tom's obsession with money is how to investigate an organization. Follow the money and you know everything, like Fitz and Afgfhanistan.

The Stargate thing is an analogy for the device created by Satan and given to humans so they can destroy themselves. It's for things like off planet teleportation and time travel. It's not a pyramid or a UFO, but a box. The Air Force military thing is because it's NORAD. NORAD has taken over the device because it is an excellent time reference point and NM moved operations there because of , time travellers, ruining the area because their tapes are going to emerge. The device does that too. It records a life as it goes through time and teleportation through electronics - seeing through the eyes and hearing through the ears, like a TV. The traveller can do no wrong and it is recorded if they do. This would be their 'Satan'(device) making sure they don't brake laws(like stealing genetics and cloning a human for the future). Lucifer tries to be this because he tries to immitate God's creation(s), but most people don't need a murderer staring through their eyes or hearing through their ears with their own bodies because they cannot use the device, TV. 'Satan' is, of course, a psychiatrist. Operations officers' psychitrists because they become involved in the operations and do damage with all they have to someone they consider a threat.

[MayBee]

Look, the simple fact of the matter is, as I said to someone the other day, Plame is not a plameologist. She's not invested in each and every detail the way the maniacs are. So it's not shocking that she doesn't get the significance and meaning of these super-weedy questions.

She plain old gets a lot of things wrong, and mis-states "facts". So does Wilson.
Which would be ok, but he tried to sell his story based on details (like the VP sending Wilson so the VP would know what he reported back), and we see now that neither of them are really detail people. And neither one hesitates to state something as fact that simply is not.
They aren't really weedy questions, anyway. They are her life. They are the ones that dragged everyone into it.

[MayBee]

Once you accept that the definition of "covert agent" under IIPA is not determined by the CIA's ordinary notion of covertness, then it's neither here nor there what the CIA has to say about Plame's status under IIPA.

That's exactly what everybody here has been saying for a long, long time.

[Jeff]

They are the ones that dragged everyone into it.

Sure they are the questions, but that's very different from characterizing her role, and if there is one person that is perfectly innocent in all of this, it is her. Also, on the specifics, you're failing to see how something at the time that clearly happened - Wilson was told the VP was interested in the Niger story and that was what prompted the notion of a mission, just as the INR guy who wrote up the report noting that the Niger story reports were highly unlikely was told that his report was in response to interest from OVP or even the VP himself - can in retrospect raise all sorts of more specific questions that simply weren't at issue at the time. And again, the story as we have it is that on February 12 the OVP apparently called CPD to find out about the Niger story. On February 13, Cheney's briefer noted Cheney's own questions about the report and expressed the desire to get him an answer back. It would be interesting to know just when Cheney asked his briefer questions about the Niger story first.

Of course, there's no reason why Cheney and others in OVP cannot tell us themselves whether they know anything about someone calling CPD on the 12th, about when Cheney read the DIA report on the Niger story, what he did with that information when exactly, when Cheney talked to his briefer about it, and so forth. They have been far less forthcoming and forthright about details than the Wilsons have been. And yet, I don't see you complaining about OVP as yet.

[Topsecretk9]

Look, the simple fact of the matter is, as I said to someone the other day, Plame is not a plameologist. She's not invested in each and every detail the way the maniacs are.

Oh. My. Dad. (SNL reference)

Look, the simple fact of the matter is, as I said to someone the other day, Scooter is not a plameologist. He's not invested in each and every detail the way the maniacs are.
---
Anyhoo, really says a lot when a lefty plameologist believes republicans - Scooter - should be expected and held to a higher level of intelligence, memory, cognizance than a super important - detail oriented (you know that means, remembering little details that most people wouldn't and then reporting all those pesky little "significant" and "meaning" things back) brilliant spy is about little old mundane aspects ABOUT HERSELF!

And the fact that she gave Jason Leopold 2 interviews, well that speaks volumes Jeff.

[Jeff]

That's exactly what everybody here has been saying for a long, long time.

Um, no it's not. Because if what you say were the truth, no one would be making a big deal about the apparent fact that the CIA's GC did not have a ready answer to Hoekstra as to whether CIA was covert under the IIPA. It's not up to the CIA to decide who is a covert agent under IIPA and who is not. It's only up to the CIA to decide who is covert and who is not in the ordinary, real-world, CIA sense. In that sense, I think there can at this point be no question that Valerie Wilson was a covert operations officer in CPD. I agree that that does not conclusively tell us anything about whether she was a covert agent under the definition of that term, though certainly the related fact that her identity as a CIA employee was classified information means she meets one of the two parts of the definition of a covert agent under IIPA. The only question that remains is whether the covert work she did abroad during the five years previous to her cover being blown qualifies as having "served outside the United States." Evidently prosecutors determined that it did; but the definition of "served outside the United States" has not, to my knowledge, been adjudicated.

I will also note that Victoria Toensing's interpretation of "served outside the United States" as requiring a posting of some extended duration means that if Phillip Agee were to blow the cover of a covert CIA operations officer who was currently overseas working under cover, but only for a period of two weeks or so, and as a consequence of that identification, the officer were killed, Agee would be completely immune from the possibility of IIPA charges.

[Topsecretk9]

Wilson was told the VP was interested in the Niger story and that was what prompted the notion of a mission

She sought interest in the trip BEFORE the VP asked what the CIA knew and AFTER the Ambass in Niger said it wasn't necessary.

Anyways, I think you have been jonesing to debate this because Empty hasn't gone near it, or Plames book, for some odd reason.

[MayBee]

Also, on the specifics, you're failing to see how something at the time that clearly happened ... - can in retrospect raise all sorts of more specific questions that simply weren't at issue at the time.

Ok, well if you understand this, then just flip it and see it from the other side. The OVP didn't ask Wilson to go. They didn't see his report. Then BAM! All the sudden someone is in the press accusing them of ignoring a mission they had sent him on and ignoring the fact that he had debunked the forgeries. They need to figure out who's saying this and defend themselves. In doing so, they ask around, and their actions "in retrospect raise all sorts of more specific questions that simply weren't at issue at the time."

It was two groups- the OVP and the Wilsons- each talking past each other. Neither apparently knowing what the other knew.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with Mrs. Wilson and her inability to recall (or recite) details if she weren't accusing people of a whole traitorous conspiracy against her based on those same details.
Her willingness to go along with her husband, and blame the OVP of treason, eliminates any claim to innocence.

[MayBee]

Anyway, Jeff. I'm going to bed but it's good to have you here. If I were Newsweek, I'd have hired you way before Kos.

[Sara]

Oh my gawd. For what, 3 years, I've been reading your long and convoluted rationalizations, Jeff. But, you have it bad for poor widdle Val, if you think she is some naive innocent who just didn't get the nuances. For goodness sake, get real. She not only knows exactly, she is probably still pulling most of the strings. She's married to an arrogant prick who is so full of himself, he just couldn't keep his mouth shut when he was called mid-level or some such nonsense. All her hard work behind the scenes, both on the job with the rest of those vipers at CIA and with the insiders of the Kerry campaign went up in smoke because she couldn't control one little lying weasely man. Plus she was careless. She should never ever have been at that meeting introducing someone so easily identified with her as her husband. That's why Armitage never gave it a thought that she could be covert - because of her publicness of being at that meeting.

She lost nothing with the revelation of her name that she hadn't already lost when she was identified as CIA years earlier by Ames and the Cuba thing. And as soon as she went into therapy and needed medication for her severe post partum depression, she had to know her usefulness anywhere but on a desk was over.

She is NO victim.

[MJW]

Jeff: And again, the story as we have it is that on February 12 the OVP apparently called CPD to find out about the Niger story.

Apparently or supposedly? Why ask* the CIA briefer for information when he had already called the CPD directly, demanding action in a manner so aggressive that it gave a junior officer the vapors?

*The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from [the Defense Intelligence Agency]) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq’s nuclear program. A memo for tomorrow’s brief would be great.

[kim]

A classic, Jeff. Plame is not a Plamologist. Is that really how you justify her not answering your desperately important question? Did you expect her to answer? Did you hope so?

Your analyses are often excellent, but your judgement is warped by emotion.

Val is innocent? If so, when is she leaving Joe?
=============================

[MJW]

Jeff: I will also note that Victoria Toensing's interpretation of "served outside the United States" as requiring a posting of some extended duration means that if Phillip Agee were to blow the cover of a covert CIA operations officer who was currently overseas working under cover, but only for a period of two weeks or so, and as a consequence of that identification, the officer were killed, Agee would be completely immune from the possibility of IIPA charges.

I note that if Agee blew the cover of the entire graduating class of covert CIA operatives prior to them being sent abroad, and they were all killed when they arrived at their posts, Agee would be completely immune from the possibility of IIPA charges. I further note that if Agee incorrectly identified someone as a covert CIA operative and they were killed, Agee would be also be completely immune from the possibility of IIPA charges.

The solution to the supposed problem is that the law was designed to be relatively narrow, so it didn't cover every possible bad situation. All the cases considered when drafting the IIPA involved CIA personnel serving in foreign posts.

I've read* through the House and Senate debates in the Congressional Record, along with the House report, the Senate Report, and the House Conference Report. Though the exact meaning of "serving abroad" is never (to my knowledge) spelled out, in every case where meaning is implied, the meaning is a permanent post in a foreign country.

For example, the House Report says (p. 21):

Undercover officers and employees overseas are in special danger when their identities are revealed, as recent events indicate. In addition, U.S. intelligence activities are disrupted severely when the identities of an officer in the clandestine service is disclosed, even when he or she is temporarily in the United States for rest, retraining or reassignment. Thus the definition includes those intelligence officers or employees whose identities have a classified cover and have served overseas within the previous five years.

Or consider this from the House debate (Sept. 23, 1981; p. 21727):

MAZZOLI: The gentleman's ammendment, the point that the gentleman pushes with his amendment, came before the committee, and as I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McClory) has said, we had in the three years I worked on this bill no real strong evidence that the former officers, retirees, people who, as the gentleman said, served abroad and have come back home are in any jeopardy or danger that we certainly understand is the case in foreign assignments undercover.

So we, by matter of choice, and with an effort to make sure we go against the people we really want to go against, we limited the coverage of our bill to active officers and U.S. citizen agents. In the case of employees as the gentleman knows, "covert agent" includes those who serve overseas and have come back home in the last five years. So if the individual is a U.S. citizen and he is an actual employee of an intelligence agency and has a post abroad and comes back home, his identity is protected for five years.

Other quotations are similar in implication, and someday I hope to give a more complete version.

---------
*Skimmed actually, since the vast majority of the debate centered on the intent requirement in the case when a person without access to classified information reveals agent identities.

[kim]

A better question, Jeff, but one that is somewhat unfair. How would you expect Val to answer that question.
=====================================

[kim]

It's unfair because the Plamologist is expected to answer a question that Plame can't. But, you should have the answer. May we have the slip, please?
======================

[PeterUK]

"Plame is not a plameologist. She's not invested in each and every detail the way the maniacs are."

In Valerie Plame's own words,she "lived her cover"

"and if there is one person that is perfectly innocent in all of this, it is her."

To be be blunt,covert operatives live a lie on a very personal level,they cheat,subvert and betray all those around them.That is the job description.

"Also, on the specifics, you're failing to see how something at the time that clearly happened - Wilson was told the VP was interested in the Niger story and that was what prompted the notion of a mission,"

Why Wilson,he knows sweet FA about the subject?

[Sue]

Look, the simple fact of the matter is, as I said to someone the other day, Plame is not a plameologist. She's not invested in each and every detail the way the maniacs are.

Seriously? That his how you excuse her not answering your simple question? You are a plameapologist. She knows the answer to the question you asked and chose to ignore your question, in its entirety.

[Cecil Turner]

And again, the story as we have it is that on February 12 the OVP apparently called CPD to find out about the Niger story. On February 13, Cheney's briefer noted Cheney's own questions about the report and expressed the desire to get him an answer back. It would be interesting to know just when Cheney asked his briefer questions about the Niger story first.

No record exists of any query from OVP prior to Feb 13. Val's memo is dated the 12th (a week after the initial "crazy report" from her own directorate, which generated significant discussion amongst analysts). The next day, CPD sent a cable to the embassy in Niamey "requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger." (Also, the cable specifically cites the VP's query as an add-on justification.) Absent a time machine, the logical conclusion is that CPD hatched the plan to send Joe before they received the query from OVP, and Val's changing story (including "walk-by guy" is bogus).

Wilson was told the VP was interested in the Niger story and that was what prompted the notion of a mission

We don't know what Joe was told, but almost certainly his main source was Val. If he believed that nonsense, it's her fault. But judging from his careful parsing of the subject (in his NY Times article which contained "nothing secret"), it's fair to assume he knew exactly how shaky that contention was.

[cathyf]

the NIE that everyone in the world except Libby, Cheney and Bush thought was classified

You know, making easily disproven false statements doesn't really improve your arguments. The NIE was declassified twice for the purposes of briefing Miller, first by Cheney and then by Bush, even though the EO permitting Cheney to declassify on his own authority was 2 months old. And Libby got legal advice from Addington as to whether it was really declassified.

No, it was not declassified in the normal procedures. Because the normal procedure would have been for Tenet to declassify it after staff review at the CIA. Which he was ordered to do a month previous, and had been insubordinate in failing to carry out that order. But the power to classify and declassify information is the president's; he doesn't lose that power simply because his subordinates are insubordinate.

[MayBee]

Do I have to haul out my Larry Johnson emails again? The story was, until it came out at trial that the dates didn't work, that the question to the briefer- a specific request from the VP- started Wilson's journey off.

[RichatUF]

TSK9-

Anyways, I think you have been jonesing to debate this because Empty hasn't gone near it, or Plames book, for some odd reason.

I don't know if you read the book, but if you can pick up a free copy, then you'll understand. The funny thing about her not being a "plameologist" is that so much of the book is error prone [details surrounding the Niger trip as an example] and where she isn't in error she is decidely vauge. Another thing about the book-take as a premise she was covert-it is horrifing that the CIA would operate in the way as described.

She gave a few examples: one was using as a source a business man who eventually ran afoul of the law. The other example was recruiting a female graduate student [read the book, then read this]

[Tom Maguire]

From Jeff:

Sure they are the questions, but that's very different from characterizing her role, and if there is one person that is perfectly innocent in all of this, it is her.

Hmm, have you read her book? Her marriage nealry hit the rocks when the Senate report quoting her cable came out - Joe apparently felt as if he had been misinformed about the extent of her non-involvement in sending him to Niger, which led to a bit of tension since everyone was dumping on poor old Joe for being a liar.

Not that I am either a marriage counselor or a psychologist, but one can imagine why she would subsequently have hit upon a particular Bush-bashing story that saves her marriage and left her with a career as an author.

[Cecil Turner]

The "insta-declassification" argument is silly, anyway. There is zero doubt the President has the authority to declassify at will, and the relevant information from the NIE had been promised a month earlier.

Contrast that with the Wilsons' self-declassification (and publication) of the Niger dispute. According to Joe:

There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

But both the INR memo and the briefing summary the trip was classified "Secret." His report (excerpted here, p4 para6) is similarly "Secret." If Valerie had written the Times article, it'd be a fairly clear-cut case of an illegal leak of classified information. As Joe did it, sans clearance, it's considerably murkier. But she put him up to it . . . or, say, helped establish his bona-fides with reporters . . . at the least it'd endanger her pension (which might help explain why she's so reluctant to answer questions on that score). Unprovable, of course, but the contention that she's innocent relies on the assumption that didn't happen. Which is at best faith-based.

[MayBee]

Tom Maguire - you did see Huffington Post when Valerie "answered" your questions, didn't you?

[Jeff]

Lots to answer and I'll come back to the valuable stuff, but can't resist this pot-kettle fishbarrel item:

You know, making easily disproven false statements doesn't really improve your arguments.

Set aside any dispute about the VP's powers of declassification (I'll just note in passing your reading of the relevant EO is wrong), which is not strictly relevant to my initial contention. You inaccurately characterize the Addington-Libby colloquoy in a crucially relevant respect: Libby did not indicate to Addington what classified information he was asking Addington about - for all Addington knew, it might have been Plame's identity, or documentary evidence from Wilson's Khan-related mission to Niger, or the INR report, or Wilson's trip report - and therefore Addington did not learn of any presidential declassification, forthcoming or otherwise, of the NIE. And according to Libby, no one else knew about it apart from him, the President and the Vice President. And there is not a single bit of evidence to suggest otherwise, and in fact that notion is supported by a number of other witnesses and documentary evidence.

Like you said, making easily disproven false statements doesn't really improve your argument.

[Cecil Turner]

Her marriage nealry hit the rocks when the Senate report quoting her cable came out - Joe apparently felt as if he had been misinformed about the extent of her non-involvement in sending him to Niger . . .

Or so they claim. It's a suspiciously convenient story, especially since it's a good defense that they collaborated to leak her information via him. The multiple protests that Val "had nothing to do with the matter" (except for "being the conduit of a message"), since proven false, suggest an effort to minimize her involvement. My mean-spirited conclusion is that she was probably intimately involved with the whole process.

[Cecil Turner]

Set aside any dispute about the VP's powers of declassification (I'll just note in passing your reading of the relevant EO is wrong) . . .

At best this point is disputable. And many confuse the power (authority) to classify or declassify with the procedures. But again, there is zero doubt of the power or the President to do so, and your "everyone in the world" statement incorrectly implies wrongdoing. Moreover, it elides the fact that the declassification process was ongoing at the time, and "everyone in the world" would learn about it in short order. Perhaps not false, but certainly misleading.

[MayBee]

cecil, I agree.
It may be true or it may be not true that Joe was upset when he found out she had hidden the knowledge of her memo from him. In either case, it is what she has to say now, isn't it? The only other choice is to admit Joe was knowingly lying.

I'd go with untrue because on HuffPo she was unable to come up with a good reason as to why she didn't tell him. She just forgot she had written it.

He was talking to the press about how he got sent to Niger, he wrote a book about how he got sent to Niger-- and all the while, she "forgot" she had written a memo suggesting Joe for the trip before the VP asked about it.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Gee, why am I not surprised that Jeff didn't respond to the point about Joe's temper tantrum when the memo of Feb. 12th recommending him to her boss, which does NOT mention the VP. She gets its significance all right.

Occam's Razor; she didn't answer cause it's dangerous territory for her. She didn't tell the CIA IG, nor the SSCI the Walkin' By Guy story. That one only surfaced during her testimony in front of Waxman's kangaroo court. She's playing you for a sucker. And, she's right.

[Jeff]

I'm not going anywhere near Tom's comment, except to say I disagree (and not for the reasons Cecil - who I don't think is being mean-spirited here, just deranged (kidding) - gives), because this whole area is just going to bring out the creepy comments here.

However, here is something I do agree with:

The OVP didn't ask Wilson to go. They didn't see his report. Then BAM! All the sudden someone is in the press accusing them of ignoring a mission they had sent him on and ignoring the fact that he had debunked the forgeries. They need to figure out who's saying this and defend themselves.

(I remain incredulous that no one in OVP saw the report; but that's not immediately relevant.) I agree this is how it looked, and I would add that they must have gotten even more pissed when they took a look at the CIA's timeline and saw the CIA relying - in reality covering its ass retrospectively - on Wilson's report as one of the streams of reporting that supported the Niger allegation. So they played defense, and also went on the offensive against Wilson. And they considered the fact that his wife was CIA and apparently involved in his trip relevant, a part of the story. Totally understandable, from their perspective.

This speaks to what I take to be the contradiction at the heart of conservative efforts to defend Libby. On the one hand, in line with his legal defense, the story is that Libby and Cheney did not consider the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA to be a part of the story, so they both didn't do anything with that information in summer 2003, and didn't remember much about it in fall 2003. On the other hand, the smarter real-world conservative defenders of Libby - Byron York is quite explicit about this, and it explains his unhappiness with Bush's commutation, instead of a full-throated pardon - make the case that in fact, Wilson's wife's CIA employment was relevant and a significant part of the story, and for several reasons: it explains why Wilson was chosen, makes the case that someone other than OVP was the driver of his mission, and identifies Wilson as a member of the other team in the White House-CIA battles of 2003, at least among other reasons. The trouble is, this defense, along with all the evidence we have, makes it quite plausible that Libby and Cheney were trying to get the Plame information out - and then you are confronted with the fact that they sure treated it like sensitive information. And I'll add, Tom's notion that the explanation for the latter fact is that Libby and Cheney were too polite to suggest nepotism, because it's simply not done in DC, is a weaker explanation than mine.

[Topsecretk9]

OT -- sheeshers

"She was not only good at debriefing HVTs [high-value targets], she was able to pose as a native Arab and easily blend in," said the source.

Prouty was a covert CIA operations officer "just like Valerie Plame," the source added, referring to the spy infamously outed in a 2003 newspaper column.

She was so good that some in the agency want to hire Prouty back one day, the source said.

Officials again yesterday insisted Prouty is not suspected of espionage or of being a mole for the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah. "There is no indication at this point that she was engaged in espionage" for Hezbollah while at the CIA, said a senior U.S. official familiar with the case...

...Other knowledgeable sources are convinced otherwise. Her brother-in-law is a fugitive Hezbollah fund-raiser who helped her lie to win U.S. citizenship seven years before she joined the FBI in 1999.

She scoured FBI files for his name, Talal Khalil Chahine.

Hmmm, her actual name was identified as an FBI agent on the internet before she became a CIA agent.

[kim]

Nice explication of the contradiction, Jeff, but I'm persuaded the Wilsons had a well organized plan, and the OVP was stumbling sensitively in the dark.
===============================

[clarice]

Nothing is a weaker explanation than yours, Jeff, despite the word counts.

[MayBee]

Jeff-
I agree with much of what you said at 11:52. It is the criminal charges that got in the way of getting that story line out, I think.
Just as Paul Begala has said he was ready to resign when he found out Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky- until the Republicans tried to make a crime of it.

Now, I think all evidence points against any charges ever going against anyone for stating that Plame worked for the CIA. Once the criminality was raised, though, the story people told to defend themselves had to follow one specific story line. Criminal cases often box people in to telling the oversimplified story.

Armitage is the best illustration, because we know exactly what he said to Woodward and how he acted afterwards.

[RichatUF]

TSK9-

Prouty was a covert CIA operations officer "just like Valerie Plame," the source added, referring to the spy infamously outed in a 2003 newspaper column.

So that explains it-Plame was working for Iran all this time.

Ooops-that's right the is "no evidence" that Prouty was actually a spy, just a little sloppy. Man they are working overtime to bury this story.

[Cecil Turner]

The trouble is, this defense, along with all the evidence we have, makes it quite plausible that Libby and Cheney were trying to get the Plame information out - and then you are confronted with the fact that they sure treated it like sensitive information.

The trouble with this offense is that it doesn't make any sense. If they were trying to "out her for revenge" they had to know: 1) she was covert (or a "NOC" in CIA parlance); and 2) that "outing" her would damage her career and intimidate her hubby. There's no evidence 1 is true (at best, her covertiness was administrative), and 2 is demonstrably false. Moreover, the communications from CIA (and her chairing the "send Joe" meeting) were the only indications anyone outside CIA HQ had of her covert status, and all seemed to imply she wasn't.

Similarly, the deep dark significance in her being an "operative" elide the fact that her status as a CIA-type had leaked weeks earlier. Claiming the latter leak with "operative" attached would have some impact is risible. The "damage" had already been done, it just hadn't been made public yet.

[Sue]

If this was Cheney and Libby trying to get something "out", they did a piss poor job of it. They needed David Corn to make it a big deal. Because everyone slept through Novak's article. Except for Wilson, Plame and Corn.

[Ranger]

Jeff

The trouble is, this defense, along with all the evidence we have, makes it quite plausible that Libby and Cheney were trying to get the Plame information out - and then you are confronted with the fact that they sure treated it like sensitive information.

Well, as it was shown at trial, Libby passed up many chances to pass on that information because many, many reporters testified that they talked to Libby about the issue and "Wilson's Wife" never came up. As to why the information was sensitive to the OVP it is just as likely that they kept a lid on it because they were deeply engaged with getting the CIA on board with the push-back and "Wilson's wife got him the gig" made the CIA look pretty lame, so best to get them to deal with it first rather then dump it on them to respond to.

[MayBee]

If this was Cheney and Libby trying to get something "out", they did a piss poor job of it.

To be clearer about my own feelings. I don't think they were trying to get the story of Plame "out", and I certainly don't think they did it for revenge. I think it was just another factor in the story they themselves were trying to figure out.

If you look at Cheney's margin notes on the NYT article, it actually makes this quite obvious. The left sees it as evidence of some vendetta, but taken at face value it actually shows they were still trying to figure out how it all fits together.

There was nothing wrong with that, and I think had Libby just stuck to that story line when talking to Fitzgerald, he would have been fine.

Maybe I'm still not being clear.

[Jeff]

If this was Cheney and Libby trying to get something "out", they did a piss poor job of it.

Yes, they did about as well at that as at everything. A key factor was that they did not realize that the reporter they had picked for the information - a pick that, from their perspective, made all the sense in the world - was being kept on an extremely short and tight leash on account of her atrocious prewar reporting. Presumably they did not realize this in part because they did not recognize the quality of her prewar reporting.

[MayBee]

Isn't it fascinating that the reporter Jeff thinks Cheney and Libby picked to get the story out was already familiar with Valerie and Joe? Already had called them. On top of that, both Valerie and Joe, like Judy, thought Saddam had WMD.
Of course, I'm sure they had never spoken with Judy before for a story.

[cathyf]

I am glad, in any case, that we seem to have set aside any dispute that she was, in fact, covert in the real-world sense of the term.

So, Jeff, do you mean "we" here in the sense of you and the voices in your head?

[MikeS]

If the VP had sent Wilson as Wilson implied, we would expect that the VP had received Wilson's report, as Wilson also implied.

For this reason "who sent Wilson," became an important question to the media, the State Department, and to the OVP.

Meanwhile Wilson's wife who had been transitioning for years into an overt position at the CIA had stopped all practices intended to keep her identity secret, and Bob Novak did indeed continue his abuse of the word "operative" in a story about her.

Disappointment, misinformation, and media allegations of exaggerations about Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs produced a perfect storm of confusion. David Corn, Joe Wilson, and others tried to capitalize on that confusion to further their own aims.

[clarice]

Heh, cathy. Or maybe Jeff just hoped that those who know better have died off, moved on or contracted Alzheimers.

[Cecil Turner]

A key factor was that they did not realize that the reporter they had picked for the information . . .

This again assumes the [nonsensical] conclusion. Their talking points don't mention Plame, and every account of any conversation she came up in cites her as an aside. The "key information" provided to Miller was the NIE summary . . . which debunks Wilson's nonsense far better than any mention of his wife possibly could. Judy was just too disorganized to make a proper record of it.

[MayBee]

Jeff-
Did it come out in the trial that beginning in May 2003, OVP kept a 3-ring binder full of information on Joe Wilson?

[RichatUF]

Cecil-

It has always been curious that the "anti-war" faction rushed to the Plame's defense. Her disagreements are trivial-Joe's trips to Niger, which, surprise, didn't yield anything and batches of aluminum tubes that Hussein wasn't suppose to have regardless of whether they were for a missle program or a centrifuge project. And regarding the tubes, it was a copy editing mistake both arguments for purpose were included.

Which brings me back to the "16 Words" and the combustion in this "scandal".

grafs-

[About half way down the speech]

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

[jumping ahead by about 7 paragraphs]

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin --enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

[cathyf]

the related fact that her identity as a CIA employee was classified information

Absolutely, positively, incontrovertably FALSE. As Armitage says:

ARMITAGE: Not only assumed it, that's what the message said, that she was publicly chairing a meeting.

On Feb 19, 2002, Plame went to a meeting where

• She disclosed to the meeting attendees that she was a CIA employee;
• She disclosed to the meeting attendees that she was married to the guy that the CIA was sending to Niger;
• She gave no indication to anyone at the meeting that they should think her CIA employment was classified (if she had, it would have been a lie -- she wouldn't have been there if it was classified -- but note that she didn't even attempt to lie about it);
• No one at the meeting (other than Mr and Mrs Wilson) had any work-related need to know that the wife of the guy that the CIA was sending to Niger happened to be married to a CIA employee.

It is an incontrovertible fact that Plame's CIA employment was not classified on Feb 19, 2002, and it is precisely the events of Feb 19, 2002, which ended up in Novak's column. There may have been confirming sources -- we know who some of them were, though surely not all. But we have a complete, unbroken chain of custody of information that goes from Valerie Plame's mouth, to State Dept guy's notes, to State Dept memo, to Dick Armitage, to Bob Novak, to the wire. The unclassified information about Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment that ended up in Bob Novak's column was released as unclassified information on Feb 19, 2002 by Valerie Plame Wilson acting with the full knowledge and approval of her CIA supervisors.

[Sue]

Yes, they did about as well at that as at everything.

Cheney is either the most competent man alive or the most inept, depending on which conspiracy you are promoting on any given day.