I took some hell for suggesting that the White House outed a covert CIA agent, but it looks like that is exactly what happened.

From the Washington Post:

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.

The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's occupation, has suggested publicly that he believes Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover. Wilson said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle that it is of keen interest to him "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that he knows of no leaks about Wilson's wife. "That is not the way this White House operates, and no one would be authorized to do such a thing," McClellan said. "I don't have any information beyond an anonymous source in a media report to suggest there is anything to this. If someone has information of this nature, then he or she should report it to the Department of Justice."

McClellan, who Rove had speak for him, said of Wilson's comments: "It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." McClellan was asked about Wilson's charge at a White House briefing Sept. 16 and said the accusation is "totally ridiculous."

Administration officials said Tenet sent a memo to the Justice Department raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law by disclosing the identity of an undercover officer. The CIA request was reported Friday night by MSNBC.com. Administration sources familiar with the matter said the Justice Department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted.

An intelligence official said Tenet "doesn't like leaks."

The CIA request could reopen the rift between the White House and the intelligence community that emerged this summer when Bush and his senior aides blamed Tenet for the inclusion of the now-discredited uranium claim -- the so-called "16 words" -- in the State of the Union address in January.

Tenet issued a statement taking responsibility for the CIA's approval of the address before it was delivered, but made clear the CIA had earlier warned the White House not to use the allegations about uranium ore. After an ensuing rush of leaks over White House handling of intelligence, Bush's aides said they believed in retrospect it had been a political mistake to blame Tenet.

The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information.

Members of the administration, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have been harshly critical of unauthorized leakers, and White House spokesmen are often dismissive of questions about news reports based on unnamed sources. The FBI is investigating senators for possibly leaking intercept information about Osama bin Laden.

The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.

Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment continues, sources said.

The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.


So either two White House officials committed felonies or an administration official is willing to say they did. Given everything I've read I'll go with option number one. Dr. Rice certainly seemed flustered when questioned about it his morning. If Dubya is smart he'll sacrifice a couple of people before this gets out of hand. Remember its a felony also for everyone who knew and didn't report it.

And for those of you who think this is just partisan bs, check out this from well-known conservative Dan Drezner.

Dan Drezner (http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000767.html)

quote from the conservative link:

Compared to this, all of Clinton's peccadilloes look like an mildly diverting scene from an Oscar Wilde production.


Why would it be compared to Clinton when everyone so far doesn't even begin to suggest that Bush was involved? Because someone in his employ is a dangerous idiot?

everything is compared to clinton

karl rove needs to die

Very interesting. I can't imagine anyone thinking they could get away with this. It just doesn't seem likely that someone savvy enough to be a serious player in politics at the whitehouse level, would come to the conclusion that revealing the identity of an intelligence asset could help their situation. I mean, I could see someone making that decision to "out" someone who no longer worked for the agency. That doesn't seem to fit what is described above though.

If Rove did this. String him up. If the President knew about this ploy, he would deserve the same. I am really curious about this, and I am certain there will be a lot more to read about it in the days ahead.

My first take on this is "I don't quite buy it". I am not saying that cause I actually voted for Bush, I would give any administration the benefit of the doubt. The reason being ... It just doesn't seem likely that someone thought they could reveal the identity of an intelligence agent, and get away with it. I mean even if it could yield them a short term gain.

Glen: My take is that the officials were trying to damage Wilson's reputation by saying he only got the job because of his wife. I do not honestly believe they were intentionally outing an agent, they just happened to do that in a petty attempt at revenge. If they could discredit Wilson's credentials they could discredit his story.

But of course that doesn't matter. If they outed an agent, even unintentionally, its a felony. We can thank Bush1 for pushing for that law in 1982. This may, in fact probably, isn't a malicious attempt to damage the CIA, but it is a reckless use of the powers of their offices.

Also of concern is who had access to this info. If Rove is involved, why does the political advisor have access to CIA covert agent identities? I have the feeling this is going to be a very bad week for the President, all of his administration's own doing.

What a surprise that the conservatives here let this thread slip into oblivion without comment....

Butter,

Actually I spent a good part of an hour talking about the story this morning. I didn't have all the research last night or I would have left some comments then.

1- According to the Post, Novak said his sources were two "senior administration officials". I have yet to see Novak quoted as saying that. In the original column, Novak said the following.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Based on Novak's own words, it's unclear whether or not those "two senior officials" were the first to tell Novak about Valerie Plume's occupation, but it is pretty clear that Novak either received confirmation of that (or was originally told the information) from someone in the CIA itself. Why is Wilson not going apeshit about that?

2- The only person who's come forward on this issue is Joseph Wilson himself, and he's hardly a sterling example of an innocent victim. He's tried to tar and feather the Bush administration ever since the case for war was first made. Anonymous sources blaming other anonymous sources for leaks isn't necessarily a big story.

3- Wilson's allegations have been around since July. In essence, this is an old story that had no legs back then. The new top to the story is the fact that the Justice Department is investigating, and the White House says they'll cooperate. Hardly the stuff of conspiracy.

Now, that being said, whoever the Justice Department determines was responsible for the leaks (and I'm guessing they won't be able to prove anything) needs to be prosecuted. I would just caution those who rush to judgment in this matter. There's far more evidence that Iraq had WMD than "senior officials" ratted out an undercover CIA agent.

There's far more evidence that Iraq had WMD than "senior officials" ratted out an undercover CIA agent.

Now, don't go suggesting that their are Americans out there defending Saddam Hussein based on partisan politics. That would be disgusting. :)

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Now, that being said, whoever the Justice Department determines was responsible for the leaks (and I'm guessing they won't be able to prove anything) needs to be prosecuted. I would just caution those who rush to judgment in this matter. There's far more evidence that Iraq had WMD than "senior officials" ratted out an undercover CIA agent.

I think this is very serious, but don't necessarily think it involves an upper level "conspiracy" that reaches to Bush. But this sort of conduct is reprehensible by whoever is responsible, especially if it were motivated by revenge.

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
What a surprise that the conservatives here let this thread slip into oblivion without comment....

I did? I thought I commented. Hmmm....

Originally posted by JPhillips
...why does the political advisor have access to CIA covert agent identities?...

The same reason the White House needed the FBI files on everybody in Congress a few years ago, maybe?

by the way, Wilson's backing off naming Rove. I don't know if you saw his interview on GMA today, but he said in essence that he was shooting his mouth off when he named Rove.

Yeah, I heard him back off on NPR.

As to the reason this is news, we now have two new items, Cam. First, by my understanding the CIA would only pass this on to Justice if their internal investigation led them to believe there was a violation. Justice didn't just pick this up, they were asked to investigate after an internal CIA review.

Secondly, we now have an Admin official saying that two White House officials committed a felony.(Possibly six counts of the same felony) This is what made the story explode. Someone connected to the admin has very specific info, six calls to journalists, that they say is evidence of a federal crime. This refutes points 2 and 3 of your response.

Finally, although its clear that Novak talked to the CIA about Plame, the above article states,

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.

Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

So actually the CIA specifically asked him not to print the name and he decided to anyway.

Again, I don't know the whole story, but this certainly needs investigating. There is certainly enough smoke to at least search for fire. What makes me skeptical is that the President seems so disinterested in this. If he wanted he could look into this himself and find out what happened. This stonewalling from the White House will only lead to more trouble later.

Politicians learn this please, its the coverup that gets you!

And this from today's Post making it clear that Plame was in fact a covert agent.

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

JPhillips,

Haven't you learned by now not to believe everything you read in the Washington Post? If, as you state, we have an "Admin official saying that two White House officials committed a felony.(Possibly six counts of the same felony)"... would you mind telling me who that official is? The reason you can't is, of course, that nobody's saying. Anonymous officials accusing more anonymous officials of wrongdoing.

Oh, and here's Matt Drudge quoting Robert Novak today:

'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...

As to who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, you might check out this article (http://nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp) in the National Review.

It's the top story in the Washington Post this morning as well as in many other media outlets. Who leaked the fact that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA?

What also might be worth asking: "Who didn't know?"

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be an investigation. There should be, and I really doubt it will turn up anything. If it does turn up evidence of a felony, whoever's guilty should be prosecuted.

I just get tired of people jumping up and down with glee at every (to this point) manufactured controversy the press and the left can come up with.

Cam: Well to use a Rumsfeld favorite, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." The anonymous source thing isn't a big deal. I wish we had a name, but anonymous sources are common. Hell Novak's sources are anonymous. He says, "As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources." I seriously doubt that the Washington Post just made up this story.

And given your first point, why would you believe Novak's anonymous source that Plame wasn't a covert agent? Seems to be a double standard. I don't know, but if the CIA has recommended an investigation it seems likely her identity or some of her projects were classified.

And the Review story comes from a former Repub National Committee employee. I don't doubt his anecdote, but why does it matter if someone else leaked this info? Is it not a crime if someone else knows too? If Clinton would have told Kennedy he got a BJ would that have made it all right?

I'm certainly not "jumping up and down with glee" as you suggest. This pisses me off. It appears that the White House was willing to damage our WMD work to exact political revenge. This is dispicable and can not be tolerated. If it turns out to all be a Democratic scam I'll want those guys prosecuted too. NOBODY can be allowed to use our national security apparatus to forward themselves politically.

ps- To clarify a little about Wilson and Rove. Wilson is saying that Rove know of or condoned the outing, not that Rove had no knowledge.

The more I read this thread the more I think Bob Novack IS the felon.

That whole [paraphrased] "The CIA asked me not to publish her name, but I didn't think it would hurt anyone". thing is what gets me.

It seems like it was common knowledge she worked for the CIA. I am not sure how that works...It looks like Novack KNEW she was an employee. That doesn't sound like a covert position, but if the CIA is investigating whether or not this jeopordizes any of her "contacts" makes it sound like she was. It may be my brain is fried from actually working today, but I need this spelled out for me.

"I need this spelled out for me."

T-H-I-S

This whole episode greatly disturbs me. First off, Novak shows himself to be a first class scumbag for doing this, regardless of his various rationalizations. If the shoe were on the other foot and this happened under Clinton with another reporter Novak and gang would have completely freaked out in righteous indignation.

I can also tell you Novak has been in the beltway long enough to know what's right and what's wrong on these issues. His rationalizations are bogus. "She was an analyst..." Hey, her husband was a diplomat, and she travelled with him. 2+2 clearly equals 4. Does anyone need to spell it out anymore clearly?

Novak outta be canned and whomever made the leak should be prosecuted, and prosecuted with the full extent of the law.

Originally posted by JPhillips
Cam: Well to use a Rumsfeld favorite, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." The anonymous source thing isn't a big deal. I wish we had a name, but anonymous sources are common. Hell Novak's sources are anonymous. He says, "As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources." I seriously doubt that the Washington Post just made up this story.

And given your first point, why would you believe Novak's anonymous source that Plame wasn't a covert agent? Seems to be a double standard. I don't know, but if the CIA has recommended an investigation it seems likely her identity or some of her projects were classified.

And the Review story comes from a former Repub National Committee employee. I don't doubt his anecdote, but why does it matter if someone else leaked this info? Is it not a crime if someone else knows too? If Clinton would have told Kennedy he got a BJ would that have made it all right?

I'm certainly not "jumping up and down with glee" as you suggest. This pisses me off. It appears that the White House was willing to damage our WMD work to exact political revenge. This is dispicable and can not be tolerated. If it turns out to all be a Democratic scam I'll want those guys prosecuted too. NOBODY can be allowed to use our national security apparatus to forward themselves politically.

ps- To clarify a little about Wilson and Rove. Wilson is saying that Rove know of or condoned the outing, not that Rove had no knowledge.

Final thoughts on this (because I've pretty much dismissed this as a real story for the time being).

I doubt the Washington Post made up the story as well, but you and I have no idea how credible any of these sources are because we don't know who they are. I'm just asking you to keep that in mind. The only person who's publicly making these allegations has a huge axe to grind.

As to the anonymous source at the CIA.. the whole reason I linked the National Review article was to point out that it was apparently common enough knowledge in Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. The fact that Novak's source says she wasn't a spy just goes along with that assumption.

I'm going to hold off on being pissed, because at this point I don't know what there is to be pissed about. I don't know who leaked the information, I don't even know if it was leaked, and I don't even know if Valerie Plame is a spy. I just have to reserve judgment until more facts are known.

Agreed. I think at this point we just know that it needs to be investigated by an impartial committee (is there such a thing?). If wrongdoing is truly found, then we can all be pissed off.

Having said that, I agree that Novak does sound like a scumbag.

Cam: This isn't just a Joe Wilson accusation. Novak has admitted being told about Plame by the White House. The same week of Novak's column Time ran a story that referred to White house sources saying Plame was with CIA. Andrea Mitchell has admitted telling Wilson the White House called her about Plame. And most importantly the CIA has investigated and filed a "crime report" with the Justice Department. You can't pin this all on Wilson.

As to whether Plame's identity was known, who cares? Just because a few people knew she was CIA its fine to tell the whole world? And even if she wasn't covert now, maybe she was in the past. I can't accept that outing a CIA agent that was at minimum not public knowledge is acceptable for the upper staff at the White House.

The CIA seems to think Plame was/is at least somewhat covert and I tend to trust their knowledge of their employees.

There is plenty of evidence that something happened. I hope Justice gets on his sooner rather than later and again. my advice to the President is deal with this now and harshly or it will bite you in the ass later. Imagine if he had sacrificed a lower level staff member in July. This would have all gone away.

Originally posted by JPhillips
Cam: This isn't just a Joe Wilson accusation. Novak has admitted being told about Plame by the White House. The same week of Novak's column Time ran a story that referred to White house sources saying Plame was with CIA. Andrea Mitchell has admitted telling Wilson the White House called her about Plame. And most importantly the CIA has investigated and filed a "crime report" with the Justice Department. You can't pin this all on Wilson.

As to whether Plame's identity was known, who cares? Just because a few people knew she was CIA its fine to tell the whole world? And even if she wasn't covert now, maybe she was in the past. I can't accept that outing a CIA agent that was at minimum not public knowledge is acceptable for the upper staff at the White House.

The CIA seems to think Plame was/is at least somewhat covert and I tend to trust their knowledge of their employees.

There is plenty of evidence that something happened. I hope Justice gets on his sooner rather than later and again. my advice to the President is deal with this now and harshly or it will bite you in the ass later. Imagine if he had sacrificed a lower level staff member in July. This would have all gone away.

This is why I hate arguing this. First of all, you're wrong on Andrea Mitchell. Quoting from this story on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1):

"A senior administration official cited in a Washington Post report Sunday said two top White House officials also called at least a half-dozen journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.
NBC News said Monday that reports that Mitchell was one of those reporters were not completely accurate. Mitchell was contacted in connection with the story, it said, but only after Novak revealed the woman’s name in his column in July."

The
Time magazine article you mentioned (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,465270,00.html) doesn't refer to White House officials. It refers to "government officials" just a paragraph after noting that among those taking shots at Wilson was CIA Director George Tenet himself. The CIA also apparently confirmed Valerie Plame's employment to Robert Novak, although they asked he not report her name.

It once again comes back to what I said. The only person publicly naming the White House in this is Joseph Wilson, a man who's publicly bashed Bush for some time. And interestingly enough, Joseph Wilson has publicly named his wife's "CIA name" on his biography at the Middle East Institute (http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html) .

If Joseph Wilson was so concerned about protecting his wife's identity, why would he say the following back in July? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17129-2003Sep29.html)

"Wilson said a producer from another network told him about the same time, "The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall that we won't use them." Wilson said the series of similar calls he received, which included four journalists from three networks, stopped on July 22, after he appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

I've never said there isn't anything to investigate. I've said I don't think it's a big story right now, and I stand by that. At the end of the day you have a Bush-basher bashing Bush and the Justice Department investigating. The CIA lawyers, by the way, file about 50 so-called "crime reports" a year with the Justice Department.

You keep going back to senior White House officials "outing" Valerie Plame, but if you go back and read everything Novak's said, he's never said the White House officials were the first to tell him Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Novak instead focuses on the fact that the officials said his wife was involved in sending him to Africa. I think at this point, knowing what we know, that it's at least plausible Novak already knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, in which case he and he alone is to blame for her "outing".

It's good to know the Justice Department and the White House apparently read this board and have decided to follow your advice, because there is an official investigation and the White House has said it's going to cooperate fully. And maybe the Justice Department will find that "senior level officials" were responsible for the "leak", in which case they should be prosecuted. I guess it's easy to make up your mind about who the guilty party is when you don't know the facts, but if you actually follow this case you know there are enough twists and turns here that you should let this play out before placing blame.

So, naturally since Wilson has publicly disagreed with the President, then his point of view is to be lent no credence whatsoever, right? :rolleyes:

If you actually mean that, then that's ridiculous, if you don't, you should really look into the phrasing of your statements before you post something that obviously took a half-hour or more to put together.

Since the only person to go public with these allegations is Joseph Wilson, I think it should be taken with a sizeable grain of salt. That's all I've ever said. What's so hard about reading comprehension these days?

And I noticed you didn't actually refute anything I included in that half hour post (which was cobbled together from research I did for my show. I actually get paid to do stuff like this).

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
So, naturally since Wilson has publicly disagreed with the President, then his point of view is to be lent no credence whatsoever, right? :rolleyes:

If you actually mean that, then that's ridiculous, if you don't, you should really look into the phrasing of your statements before you post something that obviously took a half-hour or more to put together.

Well I think he did make that point, and yes just because a source has an axe to grind doesn't automatically discredit the source. The axe to grind is certainly something to keep in mind while weighing what that source is saying. As I have read about this in several articles and a few internet blogs, I am coming to the conclusion that no one in the administration told Novak that Wilson's wife was with the CIA. Novak says someone in the administration told him that Wilson's trip to Africa was inspired/suggested by his wife. Novak then goes on to describe her as a "CIA employee working on Weapons of Mass Destruction". It seems like that is information Novak knew before hand. Novak then, eventhough he was asked not to, prints her name in a story. Did he do this because he truly didn't believe printing the name of a "CIA flunky" would amount to any harm? Was he wrong in considering her a flunky, and actually help "out" a super spy? I am thinking he printed the name of a flunky, and the real spies are dying laughing at some of the media calling this woman a spy. I am also guessing that the CIA would file a crime report if any of their employees had their names printed in the media.

I could be wrong, but that is the way the evidence that is "out there" really looks to me. IF it does turn out that someone/anyone told Novak that Plame worked for the CIA, and that information wasn't common knowledge...then string that someone up.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
And I noticed you didn't actually refute anything I included in that half hour post (which was cobbled together from research I did for my show. I actually get paid to do stuff like this).

I found your post interesting and informative. The only thing I would have to refute is the fact that he mentions his wife by name on his bio web site is fairly irrelevant. It doesn't at all mention that she is a CIA agent or much about her at all except her name. So I don't think that has any bearing on anything. Being a CIA agent doesn't necessarily mean you can't ever use your name ever again, does it?

Besides, I don't get paid to do any research on this stuff. :)

Okay Cam.

1 I never said Mitchell was contacted before Novak. All I saidd was that the White House contacted her. That's accurate. Why were they trying to get in touch with reporters about Plame even after the story? Even after Novak printed his column it was still illegal for White House sources to identify Plame if not because of the 1982 law then because of the non-disclosure agreements all high level officials sign.

2 I conceed the point on the Time story. It was government officials and that was an inadvertent error on my part. As to the CIA's response what should they have done? Should they have given a no comment knowing he'd run the story or should they have given him a breakdown of all of her work hoping he wouldn't expose all of that also? It seems like asking him not to print her name and leaving it at that was the best thing for them.

3 As to whether Plame is covert at some level, the CIA seems to think she is, so I'll trust their assessment. But lets look at a couple of other points. One, MSNBC reports that CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions from the Justice Department "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak." And two, the White House email this morning notified staffers of, "an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee." And finally David Ensor of CNN says his sources tell him, "This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information."

4 I don't really understand your point, but Wilson has never said he thought this was about the safety of his wife. He has said that this is about intimidating others who might talk. I don't know if I agree with that, but it does show that Wilson isn't hypocritical about the safety of his wife as you suggest.

5 Novak has never said that he learned of Plame's identity from anywhere but the White House. Even yesterday he said, "In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing." He has had ample opportunity to say that the White House didn't tell him this, but never has. Why doubt that these sources gave Novak the info? If he was calling the CIA to confirm Plame's identity where did this knowledge come from if not the White House? Do you really think this source said Valerie Plame sent Wilson and Novak said "oh yeah someone else just told me a Valerie Plame was a CIA employee." It takes a hell of a lot of parsing to get to your assumption. If that's true why doesn't Novak say it?

6 This perception of Wilson as a rabid partisan is just off the mark. I don't deny he has a feud with Bush, but he served with distinction for Reagan and Bush1 and according to OpenSecrets he donated 1000 dollars to Bush1's presidential campaign. I guess its easy to just put a tail and pitchfork on Wilson instead of looking at all of the facts.

I don't know who in the White House did this, but its clear that something happened. I'll wait for the facts to emerge, but I don't for a second believe we will hear the whole story if this isn't pursued aggresively by outside sources. Do you think Clinton would have investigated White Water if everyone just sat back and waited? Those in power protect themselves unless they are forced to investigate. If the White House is so concerned as they now sat why didn't they deal with this in July when it first broke? They could have at least checked phone logs.

A lot of conservatives get that this is a big deal. This isn't partisan sniping or Bush bashing, its a violation of the public trust. How could these officails endanger operations on WMD? Take a look around.

Real Clear Politics: I do think this is a serious matter that requires urgent attention from the White House. If the charges are true then the guillotine needs to come out quickly - even if the head that eventually rolls out the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is an indispensable asset to the administration like Karl Rove.

....So my advice to the administration is this: get to the bottom of it quickly and get on with business. If the charges are true, take your medicine and put an end to the matter as a political issue. There's a political silver lining in taking swift action.

Dan Drezner: As I've said previously, what I would like to see is a strong denunciation by President Bush about what took place....Let me repeat -- this is a serious allegation, and I want to see the President address it directly and publicly.

Tacitus: Whatever else this ends up being, it will certainly be a test of the politicization of the Executive branch at the Cabinet level and below. And if someone did purposefully blow Valerie Plame's cover, that person richly deserves jailing. Whomever he may be.

And this: ....as for the subject of the press conference in question: it just gives me a bad feeling. I don't see this ending well. Best possible case for the Administration now is that there's a public furor, at least in some quarters, and months of nagging questions, strange manuverings, and accusations. And that's not a very good best case at all. Unfortunately, if there was nothing to this, I can't help but believe that the White House would have quashed it already.

I may not get paid to keep up with this, but don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

edit: Wilson didn't donate to Bush1 he donated 1000$ to Dubya in September of 1999.

JPhillips, you are in violation of my long post copyrights. Please cease and desist. Do not go over the 1000 word count, without paying proper respect to the King of Long Posts. If you choose to ignore this warning, I am going to send Rumsfeld after your scrawny ass. Thank you.

:)

CR

Rum: I'd apologize, but I'm afraid that it would take me over a thousand words to do so!

all right, one final thought before I go try and work off my prodigious gut.

JPhillips, regarding Andrea Mitchell. It might just be semantics, but with this story I've noticed everybody (on both sides) seems to love playing word games. The MSNBC story about Mitchell says "Mitchell was contacted in connection with the story, it said, but only after Novak revealed the woman’s name in his column in July."

I don't think Mitchell was contacted by anybody trying to release Valerie Plame's name, because it was already out there. It sounds like she was contacted in connection with the Iraq/Niger story.

Also, the relevance of Joseph Wilson mentioning "the former Valerie Plame" on his biography is relevant because of what he said back on July 22nd. "...the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

He himself disclosed his wife's maiden name, and it was apparently an open secret (at least) in Washington that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. It's inconsistent, to say the least.

As for Tacitus' statement "if there was nothing to this, I can't help but believe that the White House would have quashed it already"... if they HAD quashed this, I'd be willing to bet some serious money that you and others would be crying holy hell about Bush not allowing a full investigation.

All I'm saying (and all I've said) is that I'm going to keep an open mind. It's certainly possible that heads are going to roll at the White House. It's also possible that heads are going to roll at the CIA. And it's possible the Justice Department either 1) wont find the leaks or 2) will find that a leak never took place.

We'll have to wait and see, and I don't think playing "Bash the President" is an appropriate game to play while waiting.

Dola,

I found this excellent piece of advice in the comments section at Daniel Drezner's site.

"Ah, we are now in the "we are interested but we really have no information" stage of a media cycle. So get ready for endless speculation to fill in where information is often conveyed. Oh wait, we are already there. If the DOJ finds nothing then we get to the "Democrats scream coverup" stage. If the DOJ gets someone it will be more and more of this cycle. And then soon it will be incestial bastard of the media cycle: the coverage of the coverage.

Anyway, everyone, take a deep breath. We really have no good info yet. Media reports are conflicting all over the place. Let the dust settle and then we can figure out what was going on and decide what we think of it."

Very true.

Originally posted by JPhillips
3 As to whether Plame is covert at some level, the CIA seems to think she is, so I'll trust their assessment. But lets look at a couple of other points. One, MSNBC reports that CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions from the Justice Department "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak." ...

5 Novak has never said that he learned of Plame's identity from anywhere but the White House. Even yesterday he said, "In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing."



Regarding three I am not unsure the CIA wouldn't consider the idnetitiy of ANY of its employees a breach of security. Heck it may be that even the Janitors Identities are classified. I don't know, but at the same time I keep thinking people hear things like "CIA opperative", and jump to the conclusion this woman was a considerable intelligence asset. I am assuming the CIA takes the public release of their employees names seriously, and possibly even run investigations to see if any assets were compromised. All conjecture on my part, but certainly plausible. I also really dont' think that a reputable journalist would print the name of someone he really thought was an important intelligence asset. Novak is pretty darned reputable.

The reason I am thinking those thoughts is because I also read Novaks statement "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing." I read that quote and see him say that first no one in the administration came to him to leak Plame's identity. I also read that quote and see that someone in the administration told him the trip was inspired by Wilson's wife. I also see him describe Plame as an employee of the CIA. The way it is written conveys to ME that Novak already possessed the knowledge that the wife worked for the CIA. I understand your reading of it too, but then it seems to me that the first part of his statement about no one in the administration calling him to leak this doesn't really fit,if you apply your interpretation. I mean if the official TOLD him Plame was CIA, then they were telling him to leak it.

Look I am not bending over backwards to claim that nothing happened here. I am looking at the facts that have been released, and making a judgement on them. I think it is a very likely possibility that either Plame wasn't a meaningful intelligence asset i.e. an analyst or bookworm, and that Novak, and others had previous knowledge of her association to the CIA. IF however Novak(and presumably a number of other people) didn't already know that she worked for the CIA, then absolutely string up whoever it was who told him.

I absolutely want the Justice department to investigate the situation, and if they find someone broke the law, they will be dealt with. If the justice deparment found no crime had been commited, I'd have NO trouble if folks wanted to bring on an independent investigation.

Cam: It doesn't matter what Wilson has said or not said. If the White House released Plame's name they are giulty of a felony. No matter how many people knew or what Wilson said in his bio if the CIA considered her covert, she was. They make the determination. The folks at the White House are paid good money to know these rules and follow them. They were either exceedingly reckless or they did it knowingly, either way its still a felony.

Glen: You have to be careful with Novak. He is a very good journalist as you say. He said in July though, "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

I don't know what's going on with him.

Yet another one of those posts I'd really love to comment on, but can't. Just trust me guys, Novak is a total scumbag and whoever spilled the beans deservs to fry for it. All your speculation is interesting and all, but much of it is way off base. The facts are pretty clear if you do a little reasoning and ignore your own political bias.

Ah, we are now in the "we are interested but we really have no information" stage of a forum thread cycle. So get ready for endless speculation to fill in where information is often conveyed. Oh wait, we are already there. If the DOJ finds nothing then we get to the "THEY FOUND THE WMD!" Skydog posts. If the DOJ gets someone it will be more and more of this cycle. And then soon it will be incestial bastard of the forum thread cycle: the posts about the posts.

But first, why are there no stories about the administrations initial dismissal of Wilsons report? Dick Cheney was on the Sunday afternoon talk shows the weeks after the original story broke several months ago, and he first did not recall the Wilson report (or even the guys name). He then treated the event as a non-event that had nothing to do with the administration, like a tourist had told them "Hey, it's snowing in Hawaii!". His matter of fact complete dismissal of the report (and of the person who wrote the report) did not seem unusual then, but certainly looks sinister now. Imagine that.

This from Newshour. Larry Johnson is a former CIA and State Dept. employee.


TERENCE SMITH: Larry Johnson, explain what the dangers are that are inherent in identifying an undercover operator. What is the worry here?

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

....TERENCE SMITH: We should point out for the record that we invited Bob Novak to join this discussion. He told me this afternoon that he had said all he had to say on this. Your reaction, Larry?

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

....TERENCE SMITH: Is there any evidence so far that any damage to national security or individuals has resulted from this?

LARRY JOHNSON: No, not to my knowledge but that's not the issue. It is the principle. You do not -- it is not up to the journalists to decide which officer they are going to out. We saw this in the 70s with Marchetti and others and Philip Agee who outed officers and they were killed. I don't want to wait until we get a body count. The principle's established: do not divulge the names of these people. In my own career trainee class I did not know Joe's wife last name; we went by our first initials.

TERENCE SMITH: You were in the same class with her?

LARRY JOHNSON: I was in the same class with her. I was Larry J. In fact, when I first saw her last name I didn't recognize her until one of other my classmates who's out now called me up and said, hey. To realize this is a terrific woman, she's a woman of great integrity and other people that don't know her were trying to suggest that she is the one that initiated that. That is such nonsense. This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

Wow. Good post, JP. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Also, the relevance of Joseph Wilson mentioning "the former Valerie Plame" on his biography is relevant because of what he said back on July 22nd. "...the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

He himself disclosed his wife's maiden name, and it was apparently an open secret (at least) in Washington that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. It's inconsistent, to say the least.

If he or his wife considered it a danger to have on the web site, do you really think he would've posted it there? Do you believe her husband wanted to see her fail, or put in danger? It seems you're willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt but not willing to do the same for Mr. Wilson. But why does this not surprise me...

We'll have to wait and see, and I don't think playing "Bash the President" is an appropriate game to play while waiting.

But then, even if the White House were found to be involved, I'm sure you wouldn't think it was appropriate even then... would you?

I think that even if Rove did this, unless they have an order from the President that this doesn't affect him.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I think that even if Rove did this, unless they have an order from the President that this doesn't affect him.

Not criminally, perhaps, but it certainly could affect him politically big time.

Originally posted by clintl
Not criminally, perhaps, but it certainly could affect him politically big time.

I just don't think so. This is just another example of people who are for him still being for him and the people who are against him still being against him. I haven't seen anything in this that tied to him.

What i find amusing is the adminsitration all the way down emphatically say repeatedly that they would not reveal any sources for information form Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that this has happened, they seem to say, oh it was common knowledge. SO why is this operative common knowledge, but others doing the same thing aren't?

ANd no, this has nothing to do with Bush. Chances are, it isn't even someone with access near Bush who leaked it. But to the public, it doesn't matter. These are the same 80% of the population that think Saddam directed the planes. Its word association and I think it will have a negative (probably small though) on Bush. You ratted out an American, people hear something like that and they don't take it kindly.

Those same 80% will not understand a word of all of this and when asked about it in next year will not know what your talking about.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I just don't think so. This is just another example of people who are for him still being for him and the people who are against him still being against him. I haven't seen anything in this that tied to him.

If it turns out to be Karl Rove, then Bush has lost his #1 political strategist. That's what I mean. I think that would do immense harm to his re-election campaign, even if the public doesn't hold Bush personally responsible.

Originally posted by clintl
If it turns out to be Karl Rove, then Bush has lost his #1 political strategist. That's what I mean. I think that would do immense harm to his re-election campaign, even if the public doesn't hold Bush personally responsible.

There you might have something. Then again, he might do better without him. It would be good to me if this thing is bad enough to make Bush reconsider running and then we could get a better Republican canidate. Of course, that's not going to happen.

Originally posted by GrantDawg
There you might have something. Then again, he might do better without him. It would be good to me if this thing is bad enough to make Bush reconsider running and then we could get a better Republican canidate. Of course, that's not going to happen.

You guys had one four years ago, and rejected him.

Originally posted by clintl
You guys had one four years ago, and rejected him.

I didn't.

Originally posted by Leonidas
Yet another one of those posts I'd really love to comment on, but can't. Just trust me guys, Novak is a total scumbag and whoever spilled the beans deservs to fry for it. All your speculation is interesting and all, but much of it is way off base. The facts are pretty clear if you do a little reasoning and ignore your own political bias.

I am guessing it was my speculation and political bias you were refering to. First according to Novaks latest column the senior administration official DID disclose that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. He also said this was hardly a secret in Washington. She is also apparently an analyst who was classified as a "covered" employee, meaning that officially she was paid/employed by another government agency. She was NOT a field agent.

This to me means that someone did commit a crime, because even if it wasn't a secret that Plame worked for the CIA, a government official shouldn't have mentioned that to anyone who wasnt' officially cleared for that information.

It also means that this is being blown out of proportion. No ones life in the field was placed in danger. She wasn't a covert field agent, she was a "covered" analyst. Furthermore the political furor of Daschle, Pelosi, and company is pretty well misplaced. This was pretty clearly not a planned leak, rather someone giving an interview, and saying something they shouldn't have. I say investigate away, and whoever did the deed should at least lose their job. Since it was apparently "not a secret" that Plame worked for the CIA, in fact it was even refered to as "common knowledge" by one souce Novak sites, I dont' know that anyone has to go to jail for this. Bottom line someone has to fall on their sword.

Of my conjecture about the CIA taking the leaking of any of their employees names seriously enough to launch an investigation into whether or not field assets were endangered proved correct. My conjecture that Plame was an analyst or bookworm, and not a field agent, proved true. Of my conjecture that the administration official didn't tell Novak of Plames CIA employment, or rather that Novak knew this seperately I call it a wash...I was wrong that the official didn't "out" her as a CIA employee, I was right that Novak already knew it.

So all in all, political bias included, I am a Democrat(Reagan Democrat) by the way, the scenario I described was pretty close to what happened. The initial story just didn't pass the "sniff" test.

I'm not trying to cast any doubt on what the former counterintelligence agent had to say, but I found it very interesting that Valerie Plame was in the same training class he was.

The Washington Post is reporting that Valerie Plame is 40 years old. The counterintelligence agent says he was an analyst for four years until leaving in 1989, which means he would have been hired in 1985 at the latest, when Valerie Plame was 22.

This is an honest question... does the CIA normally hire analysts straight out of college, or do they normally come from the ranks of academics and/or other government service?

Not really germaine to the topic, but I didn't realize we had people so young helping direct our nation's intelligence.

I think the CIA does hire some people straight out of college.

I remember the CIA recruiting on campus when I was in college. They also hire directly out of law schools or other graduate programs, and from the professional ranks as well.

Yeah I'm sure neither Johnson or Plame started out running cases, but the CIA recruits vigorously at the college level, at least they did in the early nineties when I was in undergrad.

Bad joke of the day:

Zook must have really messed up recruiting. I just heard the White House was investigating Leak.