by hilzoy
It was lunchtime, and I was (and am) at home, since it’s spring break, so I made myself lunch and flipped on CSPAN, where, as luck would have it, the House Oversight Committee holding its hearings on Valerie Plame Wilson. Wilson had finished testifying, and the committee was questioning James Knodell, the Director of the White House’s security office, and the person in charge of overseeing classified information. Rep. Waxman, in questioning, established that anyone who believed that s/he might have disclosed classified information, advertently or inadvertently, has an affirmative obligation to file a report on that fact with his office, and that no such report was ever filed in connection with the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity. (Knodell seemed very, very uncomfortable; apparently, he was appearing voluntarily, but the White House had not wanted him to appear, and he had showed up under threat of subpoena.)
Then my Congressman, Elijah Cummings, started to question Dr. Knodell, and said that he was shocked that no such report had been filed. Had there been any investigation into this failure? After more discomfort, Knodell said: no. Under further questioning, including some by a completely incredulous Henry Waxman, he said that his office had not, at any time, investigated the leak of Wilson’s identity, and that there was an affirmative obligation to do that too.
This really is extraordinary. The point of investigating a leak of classified information is not just to assign blame; it’s also to figure out how to fix things so that no similar leaks ever happen again. The best possible spin one could put on this, for the White House, is that they were completely unconcerned with covert agents getting outed. The more likely story, of course, is that they knew perfectly well who had leaked the information, and didn’t want it investigated because they knew that the more details found their way onto paper, the worse it would be.
But think about it: a covert agent’s identity was leaked. Her networks, front organizations, and so on, as well as any people she might have had entirely innocent contacts with abroad, were put in jeopardy. Agents all over the world had to ask themselves whether they, too, might be outed for purely political reasons.
And the White House never bothered to investigate, even though they had a legal obligation to do so.
Remember how the President kept saying that he wanted to get to the bottom of this? Ha ha ha.
***
UPDATE: Excerpt from Wilson’s opening statement below the fold.
“I’m grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight. I served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials.
Today, I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq I worked in the counter proliferation division of the CIA — still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.
I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq’s presumed weapons of mass destruction programs.
While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.
I loved my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer and I was dedicated to this work.
It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked.
But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States — all of my training, all of the value of my years of service — were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly. (…)
The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave but I can’t provide details beyond that in this public hearing.
But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents who, in turn, risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence.
Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, from my fellow covert officers to analysts to technical operations officers to even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.
We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies.
It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.”
Two more things. First, some of the Republicans on the committee were trying to make the case that no one in the White House knew about Wilson’s status. This shouldn’t make any difference at all. As I understand it, people who are cleared for classified information have an obligation to find out the status of any information they’re uncertain about before disclosing it. Especially in a case like this, involving the disclosure that someone works for the CIA, saying “well, I didn’t actually know that she was covert” makes no more sense than saying: well, I didn’t know that there were children in that schoolhouse when I decided to unload my AK-47 into it, or: I didn’t know that anyone was crossing the street when I decided to drive through the crosswalk with my eyes closed.
Second: all those bloggers who leapt to the conclusion that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert operative should just be ashamed of themselves. (Note: I’m not talking about people who entertained doubts, but those people who reached conclusions and talked as though those conclusions were solid.) There are some things that bloggers can establish, and others that we cannot, and it’s important that we bear that difference clearly in mind. I would not expect the CIA to confirm that someone was a covert operative. I would not expect the world to be just brimming with evidence of her covert status. Nor would I expect it to be obvious whether, e.g., she had taken trips abroad on behalf of the CIA during the last five years.
We can find out a lot with Google searches and the like, but we should be aware of their limits. Thinking that we have somehow “shown” that someone isn’t a covert operative, in the face of a lot of evidence that she was, is just silly.
You missed Plame’s testimony, so you missed her testifying – under oath – that, yes, she was covert; no, she wasn’t the one who sent Joe to niger; and yes, the CIA had tried to keep Novak from revealing her identity.
The whole hearing has been amazing. Like a stark beam of light shining into a roach- and rat-infested sewer.
CaseyL: Wow. What I miss when I’m at the dentist, and then working.
I had meant to add that everyone on the committee, Democrat and Republican alike, seemed to take her covert status as a given, but forgot.
I do enjoy the Bizarro World version.
I do enjoy the Bizarro World version.
Yeah. But what’s with the “no.4” appended to every instance of Joseph Wilson’s name?
Yeah. But what’s with the “no.4” appended to every instance of Joseph Wilson’s name?
No idea, perhaps he was the fourth Joseph Wilson listed in “who’s who”?
Hey, I’m just followintg the h earing via dKos liveblogging.
Victoria Toensing is up now. She’s been one of the the GOP-Bush apologists, claiming over and over that Plame wasn’t covert and the IIPA law (which Toensing co-wrote) didn’t apply to her.
Her testimony should be interesting. For one thing, I’d like to know where the “Plame wasn’t covert!” meme got started. Maybe Toensing knows.
I don’t think “Plame wasn’t covert!” was a meme, in the sense of something that needed to have a specific beginning point and then get picked up by specific other people in order to get propogated. I think it’s a natural belief that folks on the right really, really needed to come to in order to hold their beliefs together in a coherent form. Even if nobody had ever said it before, lots of individual right-wingers [distinguished from conservatives] would have come to it on their own.
Because if she was covert, then that means that Republicans care more about damaging Democrats than they care about our undercover agents and our national security. And that’s just impossible to believe.
A similar explanatory “meme” would quickly start up if it came out that, say, the Democrats were intentionally behind … oh, I don’t know … something that makes no sense. Say Obama became president, and it came out that 2 years into his presidency people working out of his office intentionally destroyed the best hope for educating poor black people in Chicago, just because a couple of Republicans running that program might look good. We would say “What? Huh? That can’t be right!” And if someone came up with an even vaguely reasonable alternative explanation, we would jump on it and hold tight.
Obviously the 2nd paragraph of my last comment should read “…top Republicans in the Bush White House cared more about damaging Democrats….” rather than simply “…Republicans care more about damaging Democrats….” Sorry.
IIRC, the “covert” thing got started as soon as people starting quoting the relevant laws, as an agent’s status is key to a lot of them. if she wasn’t covert at the time, she’s just a desk jockey shuffling TPS reports in accounts-receivable or something and law X doesn’t apply; and therefore she’s fair game for outing and Rove, Cheney and Libby are still saints.
the “covert” thing got started as soon as people starting quoting the relevant laws, as an agent’s status is key to a lot of them.
I wonder how Ken White over at tacitus.org or whatever it’s called now feels.
the Powerline livebloggers are pretty much convinced that Plame is lying about everything and will be tried and convicted of perjury because of this.
wow.
(sorry, broken link)
the Powerline livebloggers are pretty much convinced that Plame is lying about everything and will be tried and convicted of perjury because of this.
wow.
People, people, there aren’t going to be any exploding heads or right-wing mea culpas. This information that Plame was supposedly covert is still coming from the CIA, which everyone knows is a nest of liberals who’ve been plotting against Bush and other Republican presidents forever. Why should they suddenly be believed now?
People generally took the position that she wasn’t covert because they, personally, had not seen evidence that she went on an overseas mission in the last 5 years, as required by the IIPA. Also, you know, cocktail-party circuit, Joe Wilson in the green room, and all of that.
It’s ok to reserve judgment, but it’s not really ok to jump to conclusions just because the CIA has not personally shown you the history of Valerie Plame’s secret missions.
In any event, I thought the testimony in the Libby trial created a pretty clear impression that no one in the White House knew she was covert or, really, spent 2 seconds wondering whether she might be. Typical is Ari Fleischer, who had cavalierly put the information out there and then, upon reading suggestions in the media that a law might have been broken by the leaker, suddenly went “oh shit!” and called a lawyer.
The malice towards Joe Wilson was misguided but was understandable in a partisan atmosphere. But the fact that no one in the administration seemed to even care about whether Plame was covert is disturbing on many levels.
In any event, I thought the testimony in the Libby trial created a pretty clear impression that no one in the White House knew she was covert or, really, spent 2 seconds wondering whether she might be.
Yeah, that’s what I thought, as well.
But the fact that no one in the administration seemed to even care about whether Plame was covert is disturbing on many levels.
And this is the real key. At best, this makes the White House bunch of incompetents. AT BEST. All this shinola about whether Plame was “really” covert totally misses this rather vital point.
I wonder how Ken White over at tacitus.org or whatever it’s called now feels.
Phlegmatic, as always. Have the youngsters changed Ken’s mind about anything, ever?
Having listened this morning it seems clear that there is a difference of opinion about the requirements of the law. Victoria Toensing still says that Ms Wilson was not covert as defined in the criminal statute because she had not resided abroad within the last five years. Questions from others, as well as the testimony of Ms Wilson where she stated that she had traveled abroad as part of performing her duties during the last five years imply that they think the law requires not residence but performing assignments abroad. Is there an attorney in the house.
I will say that I could never make the grade as a politician. The Chairs closing statement to Ms Toensing called her a liar to her face while barely ruffling a feather. If I tried that I’d have half the opposition calling me out for pistols at dawn.
The relevant language is “has within the last five years served outside the United States”. I’d say it’d be a strain to limit that to residing, rather than simply performing assignments, abroad.
FYI spartikus, the successor site to Tacitus is THE FORVM: ( link here : and rest assured: Ken White made the transition quite unchanged….
I agree with LB, unless there is a definition of “served” or “served outside the United States” for purposes of the IIPA (which I don’t think there is), limiting it to residing seems a perverse notion (are the soldier in Iraq not “serving” outside the U.S.)?
Besides, residence tends to be more in the eyes of the individual for things like, I think, diversity jurisidiction and the like (and look at the loose definition applied to Dick Cheney when he suddenly “resided” in Wyoming when he was going to be V.P.). I hardly think they were leaving it up to the individual agent.
Heh, suggestion for new Atty General:
He is a Bush-appointee, either an independent or a Republican, but not a partisan or a crony or a hack like so many other current appointees. He has a sterling record of integrity and doggedness. He is obviously his own man and has shown a remarkable tendency during his career as a prosecutor for rankling partisans on both sides of the aisle. He is beholden to no one. His nomination to head the Justice Department by President Bush, and his ratification by the Congress, would send a clear message to the country that our government is willing to turn the page on the sordid recent history of the Office of Attorney General. His name? Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Count me in.
and if you like lunatic wingnut responses, you can go read Dan Riehl as he grunts out an insane and misogynistic tirade against the Wilsons.
but he’s just another ultra-fringe blogger; and we shouldn’t pay attention to what he says. even my linking to him is unfair partisan cherry-picking. he’s a nobody – it’s not like he gets to spew his crap on TV or anything.
anyone notice the similarities between this case and the firing of the US attorneys? plame said that she was working on counterprolif in iraq. no doubt she wasn’t giving the administration what it wanted to hear. so the administration decided she wouldn’t work anymore.
The thing I never really understood about the whole thing is this: the supposed motive was to discredit Mr. Wilson. Since his report mentions a meeting between high level Iraqi officials which the prime minister interpreted as asking about uranium, why bother trying to discredit Wilson? Just say that he provided evidence, that his conclusions didn’t follow from the evidence, and that the administration was choosing to use the evidence he uncovered. At worst, ten seconds of controversy and then game over.
The thing I never really understood…why bother trying to discredit Wilson?
Um, because they new it was a pack of lies and this had the potential to bring down the entire house of cards and – most importantly – because nobody – and we mean NO BODY – f**ks with Cheney. No body.
Since his report mentions a meeting between high level Iraqi officials which the prime minister interpreted as asking about uranium, why bother trying to discredit Wilson? Just say that he provided evidence, that his conclusions didn’t follow from the evidence, and that the administration was choosing to use the evidence he uncovered.
Because at that point, in summer 2003, the story was still being used as support for fears that Iraq had actually made some progress toward a nuclear weapon, not that they might have asked some questions about uranium a couple of years ago, or at least for the idea that such fears were reasonable before the war. A public discussion of the fact that the administration had evidence from Niger that Iraq had not actually acquired any uranium therefrom would have been politically damaging.
But not *all that* politically damaging. The stories were already beginning to emerge by then. I remember reading Wilson’s Op-Ed “What I Found in Niger” (or whatever it was called) and thinking “oh, yeah, well, obviously.” The stupid, crass smear and cover-up were just way out of proportion of what was needed or even possible.
As much as I would like Gonzales to step down, I don’t think it’s happening. An AG who is beholden to no one is a real risk for this administration–a worse risk than indignant statements from Senators and Congressmen. It’s not like the Democrats are actually going to impeach Gonzales.
“I agree with LB, unless there is a definition of “served” or “served outside the United States” for purposes of the IIPA (which I don’t think there is), limiting it to residing seems a perverse notion (are the soldier in Iraq not “serving” outside the U.S.)?”
Or more to the point, was Dick Cheney not “serving outside the US” on his recent brief trip to Afghanistan?
“The thing I never really understood about the whole thing is this: the supposed motive was to discredit Mr. Wilson.”
Cheney seems to have been pretty obsessive about it, for some reason.
Also, perhaps he couldn’t resist the temptation of taking a swipe at the CIA people who might well have been standing in the way of the Project For A New Arab Caliphate?
“In any event, I thought the testimony in the Libby trial created a pretty clear impression that no one in the White House knew she was covert or, really, spent 2 seconds wondering whether she might be.”
It seemed pretty clear to me that Cheney knew where she worked, and would know she was probably covert.
It’s not like the Democrats are actually going to impeach Gonzales.
Unfortunately, that’s probably right. They really ought to, though – for starters. What’s impeachment there for, otherwise (‘what’s the point of having it if we don’t use it?’)?
The stupid, crass smear and cover-up were just way out of proportion of what was needed or even possible.
If the primary motive was to “debunk” Wilson, yes.
But I think the real purpose was to deter others from stepping forth.
But I think the real purpose was to deter others from stepping forth.
And to send a warning shot across the CIA’s bow. From what I’ve read the whole place was demoralized when she was outed. The Executive Director at the time personally called her and said if there was anything he could do for her he would (I forget which book I read this in).
Just thinking out loud: So why doesn’t Fitzgerald pursue IIPA charges?
It’s clear from the Libby trial that the root of the leak was Cheney. And Cheney claims that the office of the VP has, like the Presidency, the inherent ability to declassify. So he waved his hand and declassified Valerie Plame and released his flying monkeys to spread her name far and wide. And because the Constitution is murky on the powers of the Vice Presidency, Cheney may be right.
So it’s a constitutional question, and no longer in the purview.of the criminal justice system.
So Fitzgerald went as far as he could.
spartikus: Sounds about right to me.
Maybe Cheney knew she was covert. But you have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That might be difficult.
spartikus – you’re kidding, right?
In order to violate the IIPA, “Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States”
Clearly the flying monkeys were authorized to receive such information, such that Cheney didn’t, himself, intentionally disclose such info to people not authorized for it. If the flying monkeys got their own ideas of what they were supposed to do, well, only god knows how many people work for the Veep’s office (he won’t tell us), presumably somewhere around 110,000, and with so many people to supervise how is he supposed to keep track of what his chief of staff was doing (or even who that person was).
And for people wondering why Armitage wasn’t indicted (e.g., the flying monkeys at Bizarro World), see “knowing.”
I should note that there are other ways to violate the IIPA, but the same point applies, I think.
And upon re-reading spartikus’ comment, I realize he was making a different point than I thought.
My bad, please disregard my 7:15pm.
Seb: as far as why they went after Wilson, I’ve always been partial to Kevin Drum’s theory:
Further, there’s a sense in which Wilson, while not purporting to have seen the forged documents, did give evidence before the SOTU that they were unreliable. The forgeries reported a completed purchase of uranium IIRC (actually, I’m not 100% sure of that, but I think so), and Wilson came back from Niger saying that he was fairly certain no such purchase could have taken place. So his report should have been enough to raise questions about the documents when it came in. I can see that motivating an effort to discredit him.
Wilson showed that Niger couldn’t provide yellowcake to Iraq, and that that fact was easily determined. In my view it was never very interesting whether Iraq was sniffing around Niger, because it would have been a logical bluff. But it was very interesting to learn what Wilson showed – it indicated to me that the admin hadn’t cared enough about Iraq’s nuclear program to find and absorb the truth.
With all this focus on the IIPA law, I’d like to point out that it’s actually only semi-relevant to the underlying important issues.
It’s relevant, certainly, in defining who can and can’t be prosecuted under it, of course.
But that law isn’t how the CIA defines who and who is not “covert.”
That’s important. The fact is that the IIPA was written by Congressional staffers, not by the CIA (which is as it should be), and it only awkwardly covers some of the people the CIA regards as “covert.”
This WaPo story by Richard Leiby and Pincus gets it right (how do I know? decades of close reading about how the CIA works):
She was covert. She was a NOC (non-official cover) agent.
Whether the IIPA covered her legally is interesting, and relevant if anyone had ever been charged under it, but irrelevant to the actual question as to whether she was actually a CIA officer who was under cover. She was.
In any event, I thought the testimony in the Libby trial created a pretty clear impression that no one in the White House knew she was covert or, really, spent 2 seconds wondering whether she might be. Typical is Ari Fleischer…
I think that many of the leakers were briefed by others in the White House concerning the Wilson/PLame/CIA talking points who were the ones with reason to know her covet status, but did not pass that fact on. That was Fleisher’s testimony — that Libby told him she was CIA but did not indicate that her status was classified.
Which means that Libby’s lying about how the information was learned and spread around the White house really did impede learning who both leaked AND knew of her covert status. The most likely culprits are Libby and Cheney — they were the ones figuring out early that it was Wilson who was behind the early uranium stories (before the 7/6 NY Times op-ed), and also figured out his link to Plame at the CIA.
Sheesh; while I’m trying to be careful about language, I managed to not write “[s]he was a NOC (non-official cover) officer,” as I had meant to.
Not sure it’s a slam dunk yet. I yield to someone who has followed this mess a lot more closely than I …
OCSteve, I’m not sure how much more of a slam dunk you can get than the Director of the CIA saying Plame was covert. Maguire, who homes in on every small detail, seems to have overlooked that one.
Was? I was in a SCIF. Am I in a SCIF now?
I may be naive here but if she wasn’t covert- why isn’t she still at the CIA? Why was it then that her career was over the minute the story broke? I don’t recall any reporting about her being an incompetent agent or poor performance.
I’m really and genuinely curious why some people think the CIA isn’t a credible source of information about who its covert agents are.
What’d I miss?
Everything, if history is any guide.
I’m not sure how much more of a slam dunk you can get than the Director of the CIA saying Plame was covert.
As I said I haven’t followed it that closely. Some people have (obsessively). Right and left have their “truths”. I was hoping this would settle the question but I’m not sure it has.
Legally, there seems to still be questions surrounding her overseas service. She flat out claimed she was not involved in the choice to send him – Senator Christopher Bond is tonight saying not so fast…
Hell, I don’t know – just saying I’m not sure it is settled…
Under further questioning, including some by a completely incredulous Henry Waxman
Not all the acting in the world is done in movies.
As to “Why no WH investigation” – uhh, maybe they thought the DoJ was investigating? If the WH security team had gone out and taken everyone’s story, would Waxman have (a) applauded, or (b) condemned the obvious attempt to coordinate stories and circumvent the FBI?
On Plame’s status and the notion that she confirmed she was covert- I loved this from the AP:
Or check the transcript.
Folks who need to believe she was covert as defined by the statute will certainly continue to do so. I lack the psychological training to speculate on the origin of this deep-seated desire, although I see other commenters here are qualified to take a stab at it.
Critical thinkers will wonder about this – why didn’t Waxman say the magic words – “The CIA Counsel has reviewed her classified file and the relevant statutes and concluded that, in their best judgment, she qualified as covert under the statutes”.
Instead, he blew this smoke:
“But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today’s hearing.
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.
This was classified information.”
Any guesses? I have no doubt the CIA considered her “covert” for purposes of their internal reporting (i.e., her “employment status”). But the law has its own requirements – why didn’t Waxman say whether she met them?
I’m really and genuinely curious why some people think the CIA isn’t a credible source of information about who its covert agents are.
I’m really and genuinely curious why some folks on the left now take what the CIA says at face value…
(Half yanking your chain, half serious.)
I’m really and genuinely curious what the CIA said, actually.
OCSteve, there’s a lot of things the CIA has done that make me doubt its word on specific issues. Like, f’r instance, what goes on in those secret prisons that supposedly don’t exist.
But when it comes to knowing who their own personnel are, and the status of those personnel – that I figure the CIA is a better source than, oh, say, Victoria Toensing. Or Tom Maguire.
Yo Tom – good to see you here!
Well, if we’re counting Ms. Plame as a credible witness as to the facts of her employment:
But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.
If that’s not good enough to settle it, why? Doubts as to her credibility, or is it because it’s not a legal opinion?
CaseyL: Understood. But you have to look at the irony from my side. The CIA was the boogieman of the left for most of my life. But now their leaks are OK, their word can be trusted on certain things, etc. They are just a good government agency doing their job, maybe a little judicious whistle-blowing on occasion… Really it is a bit of whiplash for me.
The thing I never really understood about the whole thing is this: the supposed motive was to discredit Mr. Wilson. Since his report mentions a meeting between high level Iraqi officials which the prime minister interpreted as asking about uranium, why bother trying to discredit Wilson? Just say that he provided evidence, that his conclusions didn’t follow from the evidence, and that the administration was choosing to use the evidence he uncovered. At worst, ten seconds of controversy and then game over.
In addition to what others have said, one thing I can’t remember seeing anywhere but seems fairly obvious to me is that, while the Nigerien official thought the Iraqi inquiry had to do with uranium, there is another eminently plausible explanation. Iraq was under sanctions at the time, and could easily have been extending feelers as to whether Niger was willing to play middleman for either exports or imports, allowing products to be registered as something not covered by the sanctions.
The question, then, is whether other countries were receiving Iraqi delegations who were wondering about trade possibilities. I suspect, though, that most countries aren’t particularly interested in discussing that particular question.
OCSteve: you think the whiplash is bad for you? Consider the whiplash it gives me to hear that the CIA is just a bunch of liberal wusses.
Doubts as to her credibility, or is it because it’s not a legal opinion?
Not a lawyer says: Seems to be a question about residency. A week trip vs. being stationed there for a time.
I agree that we are picking at straws at this point. At least maybe I am.
you think the whiplash is bad for you? Consider the whiplash it gives me to hear that the CIA is just a bunch of liberal wusses.
Hah. I feel your pain. Once BushCo gets rid of this whole silly election thing we’re going to purge those pussies (can’t say faggots anymore I guess).
[ducks, crawls under desk…]
OCSteve writes: “Seems to be a question about residency. A week trip vs. being stationed there for a time.”
Well, the law doesn’t say anything about residency, or length of deployment.
Nor would that make any sense.
The only place that ‘residency’ requirements exist are in the mind of a highly partisan person who is essentially making a fraudulent argument from authority, where she is the authority.
ie “I wrote the law, so take my word on it and don’t pester me with the text, I’ll tell you what it means, which happens to be a meaning which supports my cause but is wholly unsupported by the language.”
The question, then, is whether other countries were receiving Iraqi delegations who were wondering about trade possibilities.
Yes, they were. During this period Iraq was engaging in their version of a charm offensive, trying to get countries to break the embargo on travel to Iraq, and also be possible allies if they rotated onto the UN Security Council. That’s what was going on with Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, the former Nigerian prime minister who met with Baghdad Bob.
Tom Maguire writes: “Plame said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t know what her legal status was but said it shouldn’t have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.”
So, basically Tom you think the White House *should* have a directory of CIA staff who can be outed for political purposes? They should operate on a moral gradient rather than acting on principle? That national security is a lower priority than personal vanity?
How about revealing the movements of a military unit with a politically inconvenient commander, in hopes that he’ll be killed? Okay too?
The only place that ‘residency’ requirements exist are in the mind of a highly partisan person who is essentially making a fraudulent argument from authority, where she is the authority.
Personally, I’d like to see it come to court, criminal or civil. This does seem like the crux of it at this point.
What the hell do I know – I’m going back to the St. Pat’s open thread…
OCSteve writes: “As I said I haven’t followed it that closely. Some people have (obsessively).”
Obsessively, self-deludingly, and highly selectively.
Pretty much like any Bush partisan these days who tries to defend Bush against his myriad incompetencies and corrupt acts.
OCSteve writes:”Personally, I’d like to see it come to court, criminal or civil. This does seem like the crux of it at this point.”
Perhaps.
Though I think it far more likely that Toensing was relying on a) her own status as the law’s author, and b) the likelihood that little definitive information would come out to contradict her, due to it being classified.
Tom Maguire writes: “As to “Why no WH investigation” – uhh, maybe they thought the DoJ was investigating?”
So you think that if there were a spy in the NSC, that person should continue working without interference for at least three or four years, and only be dismissed and stripped of security clearance upon conviction?
Pretty much like any Bush partisan these days who tries to defend Bush against his myriad incompetencies and corrupt acts.
Well, the most obsessive I can think of would be FDL. Go over there and tell them they are Bush defenders 🙂
I’m not a blind defender Jon, just trying to understand it all.
OCSteve writes: “I’m not a blind defender Jon, just trying to understand it all. ”
I was alluding to Maguire, not you…
If that’s not good enough to settle it, why? Doubts as to her credibility, or is it because it’s not a legal opinion?
The requirement of the law is not as clear as some would like.
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires that an agent have classified status and the the agent “is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States”.
Wilso-philes insist that traveling abroad satisifies that requirement.
Ms. Toensing asserts that “service abroad” refers to a formal posting abroad.
Favoring the Wilso-philes – common language usage.
Favoring Ms. Toensing – uhh, pretty much everything else.
In terms of legislative history, Congress could not even agree to pass the IIPA in the late 1970’s – free speech concerns and a fear that legitmate discussion/criticism of the CIA would be quashed.
Reagan came to power in 1980 along with (IIRC) six new Rep senators, and the bill was passed in 1982. But free speech concerns persisted, so the odds are that a narrow reading makes sense.
And what drove the act? Agee and others were outing CIA officers *posted* abroad – locals could often easily tell which “Foreign Sevice” officers were really CIA just from their daily routine. And local police protection was uncertain, depending on the country.
So based on history and intent, Toensing makes sense. And here is a bit of precedent – hardly dispositive as to the CIA, but it is absolutely dispositive as to whether her proposed interpretation is even in play:
Sadly (for our purposes), that applies to geologists. But it is certainly suggestive – one might wonder (and a judge might wonder) whether other agencies have a similar definition.
As to Ms. Plame’s covert status – my official editorial position is that we don’t know, since it has not been litigated, neither side has submitted briefs, and a judge has not ruled (the only application of this law involved IA folks in Ghana).
However, Waxman was so weak (he really should have had the CIA Counsel submit an opinion) that I feel the wind at my back on this one – the reason we didn’t hear from CIA Counsel that she was covert is they wouldn’t sign off on it, is my guess.
…why didn’t Waxman say whether she met them?
is he legally allowed to ?
Oh, Jon H – save the straw for horses, thanks.
I’ve seen several references in this thread to casual acceptance or understanding of the “need to discredit” Wilson. I don’t get this at all. Prior to this episode, Wilson was known as an experienced foreign service professional who had honorably served this country and several administations. Why the casual acceptance of personal distruction as a legitmate tool for any Adminstration to answer its critics – whatever happened to addressing something *on the merits*??
“Why the casual acceptance of personal distruction as a legitmate tool for any Adminstration to answer its critics – whatever happened to addressing something *on the merits*?”
That was my point. On the merits, on the only thing Wilson could speak to, I think Wilson had the weaker case.
Slarti: “I’m really and genuinely curious what the CIA said, actually.”
Quoting Hayden:
There’s a bit more; possibly everyone is lying, of course, including those under oath, such as Ms. Plame.
Tom Maguire: “The requirement of the law is not as clear as some would like.”
As I noted above, the law is relevant as regards a prosecution, but focusing on only that which is prosecutable is not at all the only thing of interest. Regardless of whether the law was broken (and since the investigation was obstructed, we’ll perhaps never know if it was or was not; if ever, it will be many years), what the Administration did had nothing to do with policy, was purely political, and was not in the interests of the United States of America, rather than those of G. W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
This is a less defensible point than the minutia of the IIPA, or the question of whether the investigation having been proven to have been obstructed (proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as it happened, in the eyes of a non-partisan jury of law), but I rest confident that many will defend it, nonetheless.
OCSteve: “But you have to look at the irony from my side. The CIA was the boogieman of the left for most of my life.”
I don’t know about the views of “the left”; I know my views. And I’ve been reading about the CIA, and covert activities, for over 35 years, and my views have been quite consistent: like many things, including the United States itself, the CIA is a mixed bag. It has a long and complicated history, and sometimes it has been tasked to do things that were wrongheaded, and sometimes it has been tasked to do things that are evil, as well as wrongheaded, and sometimes it has been tasked to do things that are reasonable; that’s just talking about the Operations side; then we can get into analyzing all its ups and downs as regards the former directorate of Intelligence, and things they’ve gotten right, and things they’ve gotten wrong.
In other words, it’s necessary to discuss specifics, and then we can talk about how good or bad the relevant CIA action or analysis was, and how much we want to criticize them, praise them, or be neutral, as regards it.
I’m somewhat of “the left,” but I’m afraid I keep missing memos; that’s my long-held, consistent, view of the CIA. Since you asked. No whiplash should be involved. No boogieman, either.
On the merits, on the only thing Wilson could speak to, I think Wilson had the weaker case.
well, no. If Wilson had the weaker case, on the merits, why wasn’t it addressed *on the merits*? I’m not talking about what Wilson could speak to – he spoke. My concern is how the Administration responded and how that response is being uncritically accepted. How does publicly outing and ruining the career of his wife and making a big deal of a false story that she was the one who sent him to Africa constitute addressing the issue and defending the Administation’s position *on the merits*?? How is personally trashing someone who honorably served his country rather than sticking to addressing the merits accepted as an acceptable response? Why isn’t this considered morally reprehensible?
I’m afraid I think Gary has a good point – what does it matter if V Plame met the vague requirements for IIPA? Isn’t the politically motivated outing of what the CIA itself calls an “undercover” and “covert employee” sufficient for the scandal?
More Plame covertity.
The discussion of the IIPA is yet another example of the tendency of Bush defenders to latch onto a detail, whether true or false, and try to make a larger issue be all about that one point. If one memo was forged, then Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations. If someone added smoke to a photo, or if Jamil Hussein had another name, then things are going great in Iraq. If no one flushed a Koran down the toilet, or if Amnesty International or Dick Durbin used language that some people don’t like, then Guantanamo Bay and the rest of the places, known and unknown, where the US is holding prisoner are human rights paradises. If an op-ed piece by a couple of professors is flawed, then there’s been no pressure applied to US attorneys to make trouble for Democrats or lay off Republicans. If no one violated the IIPA, then destroying Plame’s career, along with any confidence that other CIA employees might have that their covert status will be protected, is just politics as usual. That’s Bushist logic as it’s operated for years now.
KCinDC preempted a rant from me on exactly the same topic. And probably did it better than I would have tonight.
The full strangeness of it doesn’t really emerge until you step back and imagine trying to tell someone in 2000 about all this. In the modern day, any presidential term will sound weird, because the world changes fast, but not all would sound this profoundly strange.
I wonder how Ken White over at tacitus.org or whatever it’s called now feels.
Phlegmatic, as always. Have the youngsters changed Ken’s mind about anything, ever?
I do try, but it’s a struggle. So far Ken’s keeping his head down regarding the ‘covert’ issue, but the Wonder Dog is out and about doing his stuff.
Now, as it happens, Kristof and Pincus were wrong: Wilson had not actually seen the documents at the time he traveled to Niger and he hadn’t debunked them.
Actually, I doubt that.
The claim is that the CIA had no access to those documents until later and so couldn’t tell that they were forgeries.
What’s the likelihood that our spies actually didn’t have access to those documents? I’d say, very unlikely. But officially they weren’t supposed to have access.
Officially, european spy groups were trading them around as a sort of currency. “I’ll show them to *you* since you’ve done me favors, but you have to promise you won’t let anybody else see them. They’re mine and it would be wrong for you to sell them instead of me.” Sort of intellectual property for spies.
For CIA to announce they had them before being given them, would upset various agreements among the international spy agencies. It would also be bad for their relations with Bush since it’s important to claim that they hadn’t already discredited it.
Yes, they probably showed the documents to Wilson, and he quite likely showed them the documents were obviously false, and they probably already knew they were false and had told Cheney they were false. And Wilson shouldn’t have announced it.
It’s silly to think you’d get the simple factual truth out of a career Washington bureaucrat, much less a career Washingto CIA bureaucrat. They don’t get those positions by blurting out things that would destroy their careers.
But this whole mess has reassured me about one thing. There were persistent rumors that the CIA killed Kennedy. I didn’t believe them but I didn’t know what to believe. But I can’t imagine that the CIA would kill kennedy and not kill Cheney. So now I’m confident that the CIA did not assassinate JFK.
I don’t get this at all. Prior to this episode, Wilson was known as an experienced foreign service professional who had honorably served this country and several administations. Why the casual acceptance of personal distruction as a legitmate tool for any Adminstration to answer its critics – whatever happened to addressing something *on the merits*??
Uhh, this is sort of what happens when one side starts believing its own spin. Libby and Fitzgerald went round and round on this in his grand jury testimony, actually – Libby abjected to the use of “discredit” as a synonym for “rebut”, which is really all the Evil Reps were doing.
Now, you may not believe their rebuttal, but the official WH talking points, as presented at trial and dictated by Dick Cheney, were basically, that:
(1) Wilson had not been sent by the Vice President (true, and contra the early Kristof columns):
(2) Wilson’s report was not definitive (true, per the SSCI);
(3) Because it was not definitive, Wilson’s report was not specifically circulated back to the OVP (true, per the SSCI);
(4) The NIE had other elements in which it was asserted that Niger was “vigorously” trying to procure uranium (true).
And memory fails, but maybe you get the drift.
In my world, “discredit” would be something like, ‘ignore Wilson, he has been divorced three times and if I could give you a look at his X-rated personnel file, you would see why’. That did not happen.
As to the shameless outing of his wife – as the trial or today’s hearing made clear, the CIA did not alert anyone to her classified status. However, Bob Grenier of the CIA did tell folks she was involved in sending her hubby. That is point 7 of Libby’s indictment, BTW, so send your complaints to Fitzgerald.
And, as Libby explained to Fitzgerald in front of the grand jury, the obvious implication (sorry, not at all obvious to the press or Libby’s critics) is that Joe Wilson is *not* a dispassionate third party referee in what was a bitter dispute between the CIA and the WH about pre-war intel.
Instead of saying, hey, here is a retired foreign service guy telling us the White House blew it, a better headline would have been ‘In Intel Dispute With White House, CIA Spouse Vouches For CIA’. Hold the presses.
That said, the Wilson version of the story (They smeared me! It was all a plot to humiliate me and intimidate others!) puts him in a much better light and probably serves Dems better in terms of votes and donations; it also makes a better book and movie. (The awkward episode where John Kerry dropped him as a consultant in July 2004 after the Senate blew up his story will probably be glossed over.)
And folks who think that “effective” equals “true” need know no more.
If no one violated the IIPA, then destroying Plame’s career, along with any confidence that other CIA employees might have that their covert status will be protected, is just politics as usual. That’s Bushist logic as it’s operated for years now.
I can quit anytime! But there is a reason folks obsess about whether the law was applicable: empowering a Special Counsel, turning the White House upside down and shaking it, and throwing as reporter into jail for 85 days are all Big deals.
If that was happening in the context of a serious probe of a serious law with real national security implication, that is one thing.
If it was done just to nail one (or more) guys on perjury/obstruction charges even though it was clear that no underlying offense was chargeable, maybe that is something else.
There is, for example, a lot of curiousity as to just what Fitzgerald told the Miller judges about his investigation before they held her in contempt – Dow Jones and the AP are still suing to get his affidavit unsealed, but the judges certainly seemed to believe they were opining on a case with real national security implications.
We can only imagine their surprise to have discovered that by the time of the affidavit Fitzgerald had already discovered all the leakers (except Rove to Cooper), that Libby had confessed to leaking to Judy Miller on July 12, but Fitzgerald wanted to see if he also leaked to her on July 8 so he could bust him for perjury.
And I do have vague memories of Dems crowing about Rove being led away in chains, as well as maybe seeing Cheney in chains. So to pretend now that violations of the law were not the real point is a bit of a re-write.
“If it was done just to nail one (or more) guys on perjury/obstruction charges even though it was clear that no underlying offense was chargeable”
That’s a pretty serious accusation! If this is so clearly true, shouldn’t Fitz be reprimanded by Justice? Can Libby sue Fitz in a civil court?
That’s a pretty serious accusation!
The false affidavit to an appeals court is a pretty serious charge, but I think we are talking reprimand or cold looks, not anything illegal. *IF* it pans out – we have not seen the affidavit.
Bringing witnesses in front of a grand jury with the specific goal of obtaining perjury charges also conflicts with DoJ regs.
However, the second is not illegal, and FWIW, Victoria Toensing seemed to be OK with it in Oct 2005.
My objection would be more as a matter of public policy – Fitzgerald ended a liong truce between DoJ and the press and won a series of court rulings weakening the press – a good thing?
In addition, Fitzgerald has assured that no future Administration will ever submit to a Special Counsel. If folks can remember every odd privilege invoked by the Clintonistas, they might agree that Bush was pretty cooperative – well, that won’t happen again.
All to obtain a he said/they said perjury conviction when all the leakers were known and there was no underlying crime. Worth it?
Uhh, this is sort of what happens when one side starts believing its own spin. Libby and Fitzgerald went round and round on this in his grand jury testimony, actually – Libby abjected to the use of “discredit” as a synonym for “rebut”, which is really all the Evil Reps were doing.
Usually when I want to rebut someone I start talking about his wife.
If that was happening in the context of a serious probe of a serious law with real national security implication, that is one thing.
If it was done just to nail one (or more) guys on perjury/obstruction charges even though it was clear that no underlying offense was chargeable, maybe that is something else.
I’ve generally stayed out of Plameworld, and will be happy to exit after (if not halfway through!) this comment. You must realize, Mr. Maguire, that these are not the only choices. The question whether there was a national security breach, or conduct deserving of consequence, is simply not resolved, exclusively and conclusively, by reference to the IIPA. There are other sources of law at play.
And even if at the end of the day the government found that it couldn’t get a conviction, that doesn’t mean that the investigation, when commenced, didn’t have a good faith basis.
The lessons about independent counsels had already been learned by political types. What went “wrong” here was that the Administration employed some people (well, at least a person) with integrity in DOJ, and ended up getting the appointment when it became clear that the AG had to stand aside. I’ve not been a fan of Mr. Ashcroft on the merits, but you have to say that on this and other issues (especially, again, his choice of deputy) the guy acted in an honorable and dignified way. It’s just too bad that he stands out so much for this.
The President could have avoided a whole lot of this by asking Armitage to out himself in the fall of 03, asking Libby and Rove to publicly admit their anti-Wilson spin campaign, and other such things. It was as a lesser measure that he ordered people to cooperate, hoping (successfully) to put off whatever it was going to end up being until after the election.
It’s kind of tragic when you think of how much of the difficulty the Administration finds itself in arises from its failure to ‘restore honor and dignity to the White House.’ For example, I think the politics of the Iraq war, domestically and maybe even internationally, would have been quite different had the President stepped up to squelch partisan rhetoric from his side. I think he still would have won the Senate in 2002, would have been reelected with 70% of the vote, and, to the extent that US domestic politics influences events in Iraq, might well be out. We’ll never know.
Tom, for one who accused Ugh of throwing straw around, you have doen a lot of it.
Nobody has proven a law wasn’t broken, although it is a standard meme on the right that since there were no indictments, obviously the law wasn’t broken, which of course is a distraction and, quite honestly, one of the more idiotic statements (which is saying a lot) from the right.
You have practically accused Fitzgerald of running this whole thing with the intent of creating a perjury charge. I would like to see some evidence of that.
You talk about the official WH talking points, and then keep saying they were true. Perhaps in the strictest terms, but itis has already been testified to that Cheney requested the CIA investigate the Niger-Iraq connection. He did not tell them to send Wilson, but that would be an overeach of executive power. You also seem to put a lot of faith in the SICI report, although there have been a lot of serious rebuttals to much of it.
At least you have the honesty to call the outing of Plame shamefu, so I can give you some credit, as many on the right view it fully justified.
Was the press weakened? Please show me how. It seems the press was more weakened by this administration from 9/11 on than anything Fitzgerald did.
We also know that the CIA requested more than once that Novak not publish. Why would they have one so other than to protect the ID of a covert officer?
I realize that everything is political to some extent, but there has not been in my memory more shameless political use of national secutiry issues thandisplaed by this administration.
And any suggestion that Bush and his administration has been cooperative compared to the Clinton administration is, quite honestly, laughable.
Yow, Charley, that sounds awfully like the “stab in the back” excuse. How exactly did domestic politics keep us from winning in Iraq?
John, the word Tom used was actually “shameless”, but from context I think he was being saracastic.
KCinDC – are you marching today? Sadly, I’m at work but might go up on the roof at 12:30 to watch.
How does publicly outing and ruining the career of his wife and making a big deal of a false story that she was the one who sent him to Africa
but it wasn’t such a big deal, it was a little whisper of a suggestion that Wilson might not be the kind of person we should pay attention to (cause, ya know, he has to let his insider/connected/anti-Bush-CIA wife get him tea-sippin jobs).
Well, I for one will say that for me, the question whether laws were broken never was the main point, and if anyone wants to prove me wrong, go for it.
Nor do I think that Fitzgerald’s failure to get an indictment shows either that laws were not broken, or that there was no good basis for the investigation at the outset. I mean: that’s the whole point of an investigation: to find things out.
I can think of several good reasons for not seeking an indictment for violations of the IIPA that would not have been obvious at the outset, as Plame’s not being covert within the meaning of the IIPA would have been. One: difficulty in proving that Plame was outed knowingly. Two: if it turned out that either the VP or the President authorized the leak, one would get into serious constitutional questions about whether they had the authority to do so, and implicitly to suspend the IIPA in this instance. As I understand it, the entire classification system is, constitutionally, an exercise of the President’s constitutional powers. If so, then, while ianal, I would think that there might be a serious question about whether he, or the VP if this power had been delegated to him, had the authority to set the law aside in this instance.
But, as I said, that has never been the main point for me. The main point is: this administration is so cavalier both about our national security and about its obligations to those who risk their lives for their country that it is prepared to out a covert CIA agent for political purposes, and stupid political purposes at that. (Stupid = discrediting what Wilson said by insinuating that he had been sent on a “junket” by his wife.)
That’s just amoral, and the question whether, in addition, it violated a narrowly written law is and always has been a smaller issue to me. And, fwiw, I would bet that that’s true for a lot of people on the left, including those who fantasized about Rove in handcuffs. That’s just explained by being someone whom Rove was repeatedly smearing as unpatriotic at (it turns out) the very same time that he was at best displaying a reckless disregard for our security.
No, Ugh, no marching for me today. I don’t think I know anyone who’s going. It seems like a lot of people decided to leave this one to ANSWER, since in January we finally managed to have a good march without them. Plus there’s all the fragmentation about how to get out (“idiot liberals” versus pragmatists).
No, Ugh, no marching for me today. I don’t think I know anyone who’s going. It seems like a lot of people decided to leave this one to ANSWER, since in January we finally managed to have a good march without them.
Probably just as well, given the cold (and the ANSWER protests seem to get a little out of hand at times).
My parents were going to come up for the service at the cathedral and the march last night, so I would have gone to that, but they decided not to drive up because of the weather. I might go to a vigil at some point.
Tom Maguire writes: “So based on history and intent, Toensing makes sense.”
No she doesn’t. And she has incentive (hell she’s probably being paid) to lie and muddy the issue.
“And here is a bit of precedent – hardly dispositive as to the CIA, but it is absolutely dispositive as to whether her proposed interpretation is even in play:
D. Service abroad means service on or after September 6, 1960, by an employee at a post of duty outside the United States and outside the employee’s place of residence if that place of residence is a territory or possession of the United States.”
Looks to *me* that this would include a short trip. For example, Cheny served at a military post of duty – Bagram airbase – when he spent the night there.
Further, the clause about “place of residence” pretty much puts the lie to Toensing’s claim that there must be long-term residency.
Let it go, Tom, you’ve lost on that point. If Fitzgerald didn’t charge on IIPA, it was because of Libby and Cheney, not Plame’s status.
You’re just desperately avoiding the conclusion that Cheney and Bush are just arrogant cowards who consider saving their own political hides to be more important than national security.
The false affidavit to an appeals court is a pretty serious charge, but I think we are talking reprimand or cold looks, not anything illegal. *IF* it pans out – we have not seen the affidavit.
Bringing witnesses in front of a grand jury with the specific goal of obtaining perjury charges also conflicts with DoJ regs.
Well, that sounds like some serious “performance issues”. Should we expect the WH to dismiss him as a USA on those grounds? I mean, since we’ve established there were no political motives for the Admin’s actions involving Plame (simply “setting the record straight”) AND Fitz has seriously damaged the DoJ/media relationship, ruined any chance of future SPs being named, gone on a partisan witch-hunt, etc…
I mean, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President and all.
Now, you may not believe their rebuttal, but the official WH talking points, as presented at trial and dictated by Dick Cheney, were basically, that:
oh – I see – so it doesn’t matter what was said, alleged or inferred, by the Bush White House and its minions in the 4 years after 2003 leading up to trial – we can ignore all that because only the “official WH talking points” as presented at the trial in 2007 constitute the way Wilson was treated since since summer 2003. okay – so he wasn’t smeared and condemned as a liar or worse up and down and sideways – this all must have been a liberal fantasy for the past 4 years.
In my world, “discredit” would be something like, ‘ignore Wilson, he has been divorced three times and if I could give you a look at his X-rated personnel file, you would see why’. That did not happen.
Tom, I know you came in late, but the word “discredit” was used several times in the thread earlier – and that’s what I was reacting to. So really, what’s in your world isn’t really dispositive to the discussion.
I don’t want to add fuel to the fire, but I can’t help but want to see everyone argue about this timeline.
…argue about this timeline.
seems to me that any timeline about this issue would start a bit earlier than the 03 SOTU. it should include info about Wilson’s trip, Cheney’s requests, the origins of the intel Bush cited in the SOTU, the Iraqi/Niger backstory, etc.. starting with the SOTU is starting in the middle.
but, i guess if your goal is to try to show that “Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV who first “outed” his wife as a CIA officer”, you’ve gotta be pretty selective about what you show and what you conveniently fail to mention.
that sounds awfully like the “stab in the back” excuse
Yeah, the “shot in the foot” excuse has some superficiality similarity to the “stab in the back.” We’ll never know what would have happened had American foreign policy been run from 2003-2006 on a bipartisan consensus basis. A different war (if one at all) with more limited aims, and a less promising political field for an insurgency. Would it have been enough? I can’t say.
I’ve never believed in the stab in the back, but I have to say that if supporters of the war think my support was worth something, they should have tried to earn it.
Just looked at that timelene, Jonas. Nothing prior to the June 2003 conversation between Armitage and Woodward requires that Wilson outed Plame. He can tell anyone he wants about his trip to Niger without revealing that his wife was an NOC. In the Armitage conversation, he says that ‘everyone knows’ that Plame is CIA because Wilson is calling everyone. This still isn’t telling us that he leaked it: by everyone, Armitage clearly doesn’t mean every single person on earth, in the US, in Washington, or even at senior levels of government. He means people in on the discussion of his visit and what it means. people like Armitage.
Even if Armitage is telling the truth, you still don’t get to it.
And even then, just because someone revealed an NOC to someone else, that doesn’t mean all future revelations are OK. A revelation to someone who didn’t know already would still be chargeable, provided the other elements were met. This is another red herring.
The timeline guy says there was much talk within the Kerry camp that Wilson would be Secretary of State.
I’m basically speechless. There are people stupid enpough to buy such tripe?
” Cavalier about national security”, a terrible thing and I’m glad the sentiment has been expressed by the guru of ObWi. But it does seem a rather winding road that anti-cavalier feelings follow. Some secrets released are hailed as serving civil libertarian protections, others are condemned as treason, allowing for a little recent backtracking on the latter.
Ms Plame when asked about her feelings on the leaking of a covert agent’s identity and the release of classified information responded “I think both are equally damaging”. Although I expect some gymnastic parsing on this one yet Plame shows some minimal consistency, however temporary.
Speaking of temporary, when explaining her covert status [barf] Plame said” covert operations officers when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington are still covert”. From this one may conclude that the five years Plame was in Langley was temporary but that her occasional trips overseas were permanent. Having seen some remarkable definitions of “serve” and “serving” above I doubt anybody here would have a problem with that.
You are left with a CIA, Plame and whoever,that set up a bogus trip to Niger in an attempt to discredit the administration and executive office they worked for, leaked, that terrible word again, the CIA memo to DOJ on a request for investigation, allowed Joe Wilson to go public on a haphazard and paltry visit to Niger [ and bearing in mind the original Bush remarks concerned Africa], never required Mr. Wilson to sign confidentiality statements, exposed Plame to possible revelations by picking Joe in the first place,[ great judgment], that Plame herself revealed her cover,Brewster-Jennings in an earlier indiscretion, That Plame acknowledges “only”a handful of people outside the CIA knew her identity[ great, but then it’s not a secret, putting aside the veracity and vagueness of “handful”]and much more that could be piled on but I’m sure to no avail.
You don’t or shouldn’t get to pick what secrets are ok to reveal and what are transgressions against your sensibilities and fluctuating need for national security. Ultimately what it comes down to is that Plame and hubby as well as the CIA stuck their necks out in one more effort to attack and damage the administration. The fact that it was done in both pure clumsiness and malice has been lost in the canonization of all three.
Please, no encomiums. I’ll be back to review my fan mail later.
Amazing tide of disinformation from the anti-Plame forces. I read the McGuire narrative, which is littered with wrong facts (or cites to the blatantly false SICI). I read the “timeline” linked by Jonas Cord — same thing.
Waxman was so weak (he really should have had the CIA Counsel submit an opinion) that I feel the wind at my back on this one…
Right — so weak when he basically quoted Bush’s director of the CIA regarding Plame’s status.
And no CIA official or Bush administration official has ever said that “Plame was not covert” — funny how the total absence of that never registers with Plame-deniers. If she was not covert, then the Bush administration could state so plainly. They never have — it is the strongest form of circumstancial proof that she was covert. The contrary efforts to parse a contrary narrative from other circumstancial evidence is nothing in comparison.
As to “Why no WH investigation” – uhh, maybe they thought the DoJ was investigating?
More made up nonsense. The WH knew exactly what the DoJ was doing since it’s allies run it — it was a few months before the DoJ started doing anything. And a subsequent DoJ investigation does not in any manner preclude the WH doing its own investigation of lapses in handling classified info.
And the CIA never did anything to prevent the story being published? They asked Novak repeatedly not to run the story — he gave them the finger and ran it anyway.
Then there is this usual nonsense:
(1) Wilson had not been sent by the Vice President (true, and contra the early Kristof columns):
(2) Wilson’s report was not definitive (true, per the SSCI);
(3) Because it was not definitive, Wilson’s report was not specifically circulated back to the OVP (true, per the SSCI);
(4) The NIE had other elements in which it was asserted that Niger was “vigorously” trying to procure uranium (true).
1) Wilson was sent because the VP requested info from the CIA re Niger, and CIA decided that one of the many things it did to answer the VP’s query was to send Wilson to Niger. The VP did not select Wilson specifically, and no one ever said this directly, but he caused him to be sent. The early press report was vague as to the exact link between Cheney and Wilson suggesting that Cheney himself selected Wilson (Wilson was always clear and correct on this — that he was sent by the CIA to respond to a query by the VP, and that he knew of no direct involvement by Cheney in his selection). This is a non-issue anyway — part of the strawman rebuttal to Wilson that begins with the false claim that Wilson lied when he claims he was sent by Cheney. Wilson never claimed this, and the correct statement is that Cheney’s request caused him to be sent.
2) Wilson’s report was definitive as to the scope of his inquiry. It was never intended to rebut every possible angle concerning the issue, and was only part of the effort to investigate the question. Saying is was not “definitive” of the larger question is a non sequitir since it was never intended to be.
3) No — the CIA wrote its own summary based on Wilson’s input and the other sources of input. It did not also forward all of the background data it had gathered, including Wilson’s report (which was verbal only to the CIA). The result’s of Wilson’s inquiry were sent back to the VP and ignored (as well as all of the other negative info negating any possible support for the Iraq/Niger story).
Indeed, the prime source of the rumor was the forged documents — there was nothing else supporting the claim (other than a vague discussion at a 1999 Tripoli economic meeting in which Iraq and Niger were participants — no mention of uranium, just a one-liner about forming economic ties that went no where.) The documents were known by the CIA to be forged as of early 2002, and yet that definitive refutation did not kill the issue for Cheney et al.
4) “True” only in the sense that the NIE relied on the forged documents for it “vigorous” assertion — there was nothing substantive to rebut Wilson’s point that the story had no basis from what he learned. And Wilson was only one of many data points all showing the story to be bunk. The story had no support and had to be kept alive in the face of all of the negative evidence. There was no positive credible evidence — only the desire to find anything (even if not facts) to fit around the policy.
That is why Wilson going public was so bad for Bush/Cheney– it struck at the heart of the lying to make a case for war. Wilson himself was only a tiny cog on that issue, but any crack was a danger.
How to deal with a critic? Smear him using his wife, even if it discloses her covert CIA status. Cheney and Libby probably knew she was covert, but did not care.
________________
The most humorous error in the timeline is that the author does not realize that Cheney and Libby were busy figuring out that Wilson was the official referenced in the early Kristof and Pincus stories, and that they had already started the push-back against Wilson before his July 6 NY Times op-ed. Libby leaked to Miller re Plame in June. Cheney’s notes on the July 6 op-ed represent the already established meme on how to push-back — it was not the initial formulation of it. Therefore, the author claims that it must have been Wilson doing the leaking about Plame before July 6 because no one else allegedly was — sheer nonsense.
Equally nonsensical is the misuse of Wilson’s remarks in obvious ways. Wilson’s remarks speculating that Saddam might have chemical weapons as WMD means that he agrees that he also had a nuclear program? Just goofy wrong.
The discussion at Tom’s place seems to lean toward Waxman misrepresenting something Hayden said.
Curious that Hayden isn’t holding a press conference to set the record straight isn’t it?
but I can’t help but want to see everyone argue about this timeline.
What I find particularly interesting about that timeline — apart from its shonkiness as a timeline — is that absolutely none of the evidence they produce even mentions Joe Wilson talking about his wife, yet they conclude:
That’s beyond mind-reading and into calumny at that point.
johnt: You are left with a CIA, Plame and whoever,that set up a bogus trip to Niger in an attempt to discredit the administration and executive office they worked for…
What?? Are you fnording kidding me?
That’s beyond mind-reading and into calumny at that point.
The assumption that a life-long member of the diplomatic corps and a 25-year veteran of the CIA would embark upon a byzantine plan to discredit George Bush for no apparent reason tells us a lot about the people who concoct and believe such tripe.
To wit: I would not trust a single one of them to keep any oaths of their own, or to not betray anyone at any time if they thought it would gain them some momentary advantage or attention.
dmbeaster,
Thanks! I knew something was wrong, but quite frankly, I don’t have enough spare brain capacity to keep track of all these details.
johnt: You are left with a CIA, Plame and whoever,that set up a bogus trip to Niger in an attempt to discredit the administration and executive office they worked for…
Funny, I thought they worked for the people.
Wow. I’m a bit stunned at the energy and quantity of the flat-out denialist Plame response, and I admire you all who are willing to put time into marshalling evidence to confirm that 2+2=4.
cleek said: any timeline about this issue would start a bit earlier than the 03 SOTU. it should include info about Wilson’s trip, Cheney’s requests, the origins of the intel Bush cited in the SOTU, the Iraqi/Niger backstory, etc..
Yes. One good source for that is a Christian Science Monitor story from November 2005. Another is from the LATimes last February.
Or there’s Craig Unger’s article last June in Vanity Fair, on the Niger forgery and Ledeen.
Also, if she wasn’t covert, why isn’t the administration screaming this from the high heavens?
You have practically accused Fitzgerald of running this whole thing with the intent of creating a perjury charge. I would like to see some evidence of that.
1. From Fitzgerald’s presser after the Libby convictions (and you have to watch the video), he basically says that the verdict confirms the reason for his appointment in Dec 2003 – the FBI believed that Libby had told a story. You have to sit through a 15 second ad, but the relevant words are the first ones out of Fitzgerald’s mouth.
2. This letter from about one month after his appointment, when he asked for special clarification of his power to charge perjury and obstruction.
3. Murray Waas on why Ashcroft recused himself.
4. Fitzgerald’s failure to subpoena david Gregory or John Dickerson to verify whether Ari Fleischer had in fact leaked to them suggests a certain incuriousity about the leak investigation. However, Fitzgerald was very keen to subpoena Miller, Cooper, Kessler, and Russert, all of whom spoke with Libby.
itis has already been testified to that Cheney requested the CIA investigate the Niger-Iraq connection.
Well, it has been testified that Cheney had follow up questions to a DIA report and asked the CIA for their thoughts. Since State and Defense had questions also, the CIA bestirred themselves. But I don’t think you will find any evidence at all that Cheney requested an “investigation”.
We also know that the CIA requested more than once that Novak not publish. Why would they have one so other than to protect the ID of a covert officer?
I think it was once, actually; Harlow, the CIA press guy chaytted with Novak about Plame (told himthe story was wrong), checked her status, then called Novak back (this despite having been asked about Plame by Cathie Martin a month ago – what, he never checked her status, or did he forget it?). Harlow never called Novak’s editor, nor did he have a senior CIA guy call Novak or his editor. Yet when the Admin wanted to quash the prisons story or the warrantless eavesdropping story, they managed to get it done. Why?
My guess – they just weren’t that into her.
And any suggestion that Bush and his administration has been cooperative compared to the Clinton administration is, quite honestly, laughable.
On this specific investigation? What comparison would you make to Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege, Secret Service privilege (unheard of), attorney client privilege (not applicable here), and others I have no doubt repressed.
In what way did BushCo fail to cooperate with this investigation, other than the controversial issue of Libby’s memory?
Is anyone else picking up an unbelievably dishonest vibe from this Tom Maguire? One can usually tell when someone is choosing his words carefully with the intent to deceive or conceal, and I’m getting some big red flags.
I don’t mean to dance near the posting rules line, and I think there are other regulars here whose substantive knowledge of this topic exceeds my own, so I’ll just shut up now.
Yet when the Admin wanted to quash the prisons story or the warrantless eavesdropping story, they managed to get it done. Why?
because they were able to scare the NYT for a year with scary stories about national security and lame concerns about ‘tipping the election’ by printing it in 2004. after Dan Rather’s debacle, the NYT was being a little more careful about being seen as trying to influence elections.
Well, I for one will say that for me, the question whether laws were broken never was the main point, and if anyone wants to prove me wrong, go for it.
David Corn, June 16 2003, lead paragraph of the story that launched the scandal:
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security–and break the law–in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
Within days Sen. Chuck Schumer was calling for an investigation.
That said, I concur with much of the rest of the hilzoy comment – let me specifically endorse this:
I can think of several good reasons for not seeking an indictment for violations of the IIPA that would not have been obvious at the outset, as Plame’s not being covert within the meaning of the IIPA would have been. One: difficulty in proving that Plame was outed knowingly. Two: if it turned out that either the VP or the President authorized the leak, one would get into serious constitutional questions about whether they had the authority to do so, and implicitly to suspend the IIPA in this instance.
Leading one to wonder where Fitzgerald thought he was headed if Libby had simply said, “Sure. Cheney asked me about Wilson and his wife and July 7 – I remember because he was red-faced and brandishing the op-ed, and we were joking about Dick’s ticker.”
From dmbeaster:
…which is littered with wrong facts
I’ll try to use right facts next time.
Right — so weak when he basically quoted Bush’s director of the CIA regarding Plame’s status.
Here is a snippet:
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.
“Employment status”? That presumably means the CIA thought she was covert by their guidelines, but is silent on the law. Since Waxman was well aware of the controversy, why do you suppose he ducked it this way?
More from dmbeaster:
2) Wilson’s report was definitive as to the scope of his inquiry. It was never intended to rebut every possible angle concerning the issue, and was only part of the effort to investigate the question. Saying is was not “definitive” of the larger question is a non sequitir since it was never intended to be.
From Nick Kristof, May 6 2003, with Wilson as a source:
I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
Make the call.
The documents were known by the CIA to be forged as of early 2002, and yet that definitive refutation did not kill the issue for Cheney et al.
Do tell – the CIA claims to have learned they were forgeries after submitting them to the IAEA in early 2003. You have a real headline there if you can prove the early 2002 date.
Davebo:
The discussion at Tom’s place seems to lean toward Waxman misrepresenting something Hayden said.
Curious that Hayden isn’t holding a press conference to set the record straight isn’t it?
Curius that he is not getting in the face of the party that holds the purse strings?
I have no doubt that Hayden said that Ms. Plame was covert for purposes of CIA employment guidelines. He may also have said that he does not know her status under the IIPA (and Waxman would have left that out). But neither does Ms. Plame:
…Plame said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t know what her legal status was but said it shouldn’t have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
I think you guys should email her with the clarification that she is in fact covert under the statute – she will probably be glad to know.
Sorry, my time management has collapsed for now. Enjoy the weekend, I hope to be back.
Tom writes: ” From Fitzgerald’s presser after the Libby convictions (and you have to watch the video), he basically says that the verdict confirms the reason for his appointment in Dec 2003 – the FBI believed that Libby had told a story. You have to sit through a 15 second ad, but the relevant words are the first ones out of Fitzgerald’s mouth.”
So Libby was already lying before Fitzgerald came on, thus showing an effort to obstruct justice. He continued to do so at the grand jury.
That’s a far different thing than Fitzgerald coming in and only then trying to set up some spurious perjury trap for Libby for lack of anything else to do. Libby had already chosen the path of a felon.
And you think this reflects poorly on Fitzgerald?
Tom writes: “Leading one to wonder where Fitzgerald thought he was headed if Libby had simply said, “Sure. Cheney asked me about Wilson and his wife and July 7 – I remember because he was red-faced and brandishing the op-ed, and we were joking about Dick’s ticker.””
Sadly for you, in the real world Fitzgerald knew where he was headed because when he came in the FBI told him Libby was hiding something and lying to investigators.
Tom, can you distill what you’re trying to convince us of down to a few concise sentences? cause right now it looks like you’re simply trying to argue against each and every aspect of a bunch of different (large and complex) issues with no point other than “argue with the liberals”.
There truly is no sillier person on the intertubes than Tom Maguire.
Keep pounding the table, Tom. I’m sure you’ll convince [i]someone[/i].
Seriously, this is Delusion Version 2.0.
First it was “Fitzgerald will indict Wilson!”. Now it’s, what, the DoJ should indict [i]Fitzgerald[/i]?
Jeez.
For the record: I am not David Corn. Therefore, quotes from him do not establish anything about what I took the main point to be.
But are you really a credible witness as to whether or not you’re really David Corn?
I second cleek’s request at 5:39.
I’m lost.
Does Maguire really believe the Administartion, which could have avoided the whole thing by acting honestly from the beginning, cooperated with the investigation? Wow. That’s delusional.
Does he really think that if he can find, or manufacture, some loophole under which what happened didn’t violate any laws that it was perfectly OK?
Most broadly, is it Maguire’s belief that the Administration has behaved honorably in this matter?
They have to cling to their belief that Plame wasn’t covert, or else find some rationalization that exposing covert agents for political revenge is OK.
I think, at this point, what with the Director of the CIA saying Plame was covert, they should just go with the rationalization. They’d look a little less silly.
I’m late to this Tom Maguire guy, so I’m caught on something he raised way upthread. Here’s the part of the IIPA that defines covert:
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or…
[snip as these are the only categories that Plame could presumably fall under]
There are two categories (A) or (B). A is all about ‘serve’ and B is all about ‘resides.’
Serve as in what our soldiers are doing in Iraq. Back before we’d used up our manpower in this vicious and pointless and endless war, one could ‘serve’ for a couple months and be rotated out. And as this is phrased in the alternative, Ms. Plame could serve and not reside in order to fulfill the definition of covert under the IIPA.
Gotta hand it to this Tom Maguire though; he is doing a bang up job of trying to confuse via obfuscation. I think folks should volunteer to debunk a portion of what he’s posting. I’m sure that it’s a joint effort for him somewhere too.
Tom Maguire: I have no doubt the CIA considered her “covert” for purposes of their internal reporting (i.e., her “employment status”).
and later:
“Employment status”? That presumably means the CIA thought she was covert by their guidelines, but is silent on the law.
How do you get to this interpretation? “Her employment status with the CIA was classified information” seems pretty unambiguous to me. Classification isn’t simply a matter of internal agency record-keeping. Information isn’t classified inside the CIA, but not classified in the West Wing, is it? If her employment status (i.e. who she worked for) was classified, then any leak of that information was a leak of classified information. How this intersects with the criminal code I don’t know, but to read this as a simple matter of how the CIA keeps its employment records simply doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Maguire:
How can you get so much wrong about this? Another example:
Do tell – the CIA claims to have learned they were forgeries after submitting them to the IAEA in early 2003. You have a real headline there if you can prove the early 2002 date.
The CIA makes no such claim concerning the IAEA. From your own comment only a few lines above the above quote:
From Nick Kristof, May 6 2003, with Wilson as a source:
I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
And from hilzoy’s 7:52 comment above, Kevin Drum’s favorite theory as to why Cheney overreacted to Wilson’s story was the awareness that the documents had been debunked in 2002, but Cheney kept trying to get traction out of forged documents. The forgeries were first publicly revealed by the IAEA in March, 2003, after the SOTU speech made them front and center, but the forgeries were obvious to the intel services from the inception. Why? Because it did not take some special expertise of the IAEA to spot the forgeries — they were crude and stupid forgeries to anyone trained in basic intel. Dates were blatantly wrong, as were the persons who supposedly authored them. (One of the untold stories is how these were shopped and why they ever had any traction at all; TPM has followed this story from the beginning, and the US never bothered to try to figure out who was behind the forgeries — a case of not wanting to know?)
What is humorous is that the Kristof article got it wrong in attributing the discovery of the forgeries to Wilson (Wilson denies that he had anything to do with the forgery issue), but so what.
eRiposte at Firedoglake has a long series of posts analyzing these details and linking to the primary source documents as revealed during the Libby trial.
————–
One of the interesting back stories on this is the narrative that all of the rumors about Iraq/Niger trace back to the Italians peddling the forged documents to various intel services in 2002. This allegedly led to the story being multiple-sourced (each intel source reporting to others the story, hence “multiple” sources), but the multiple sources were simply echoes of the original bogus forgery source. (i.e., “we have these documents, plus the the intel service of XYZ country is also telling us its true” — except XYZ is simply reporting the story as based on the documents).
The CIA was close to killing the bogus Niger story in 2002 (it was deleted from Presidential speeches at that time per CIA insistence), but Cheney et al. kept fighting to get it into the public argument.
So how did the finagle it? By saying that the British had a “separate” source independent of the Niger documents. Hence the infamous 16 words refer to British intel learning of Iraq efforts to purchase, and not basing it on US intel (which was saying the story was bogus).
Did the British have a second source? Almost certainly not (though British refuse to reveal the exact details). It was almost certainly treating the echoes as “multiple” sources — the British were also anxious to fix facts around the policy, and provided the baloney analysis that the CIA had debunked.
The level of deceit it took to get the 16 words into the SOTU was huge, and Cheney was a primary architect. Again, support for Drum’s idea as to why Cheney was obsessed about Wilson’s discussion of Niger.
Well, there you go. I’m certain that dmbeaster is privy to pretty much everything that British intelligence is privy to, and take that statement as Truth. Or almost Truth.
It’s almost the sort of inverse cherrypicking that Plame skeptics are being accused of.
I think the “almost certainly not” refers, not to dmbeaster’s sources within MI5, but to the fact that the Niger documents are now known to be forgeries, which sort of obviates the question of whether there was a second source. That is, if there was, it was no more credible than the first.
The list of sources of uranium in Africa is finite – has anyone checked if the others are as dead ends as Niger?
Is there reason to think that the Blair admin would tell us if they found that they had been fooled about the supposed other sources?
Or that they wouldn’t have revealed their source of information to us?
Tom Maguire | March 17, 2007 at 07:16 AM
I can quit anytime!
Would you, please?
Above, “us”_0 = “the world”, “us”_1 = “the US before the SotU”.
When Wilson leaked details of his Niger trip to Kristof, Plame failed to report that leak, despite an obligation to do so.
Yet you appear less concerned about this. One wonders why.
Is anyone else picking up an unbelievably dishonest vibe from this Tom Maguire?
…
There truly is no sillier person on the intertubes than Tom Maguire.
Most here obviously don’t agree with him, but give him a bit of credit for coming over here to defend his position.
He has followed this thing as closely as anyone (check his archives if you don’t believe it).
I was hoping this hearing would resolve things but there are still ambiguities. There is still room for an honest difference of opinion. The man has his own blog to maintain yet he put considerable time into commenting here and he did so in a civil manner.
I would think that most could at least appreciate that.
Ugh, Anarch
Ugh, >” Funny, I thought they worked for the people”<. Funnier then you think Ugh. Bureaucracy, democracy in action ! They serve their own interests, as they see and understand them. Now if you really are interested in lard ass government careerists working for the people you might support some revision of the Civil Service laws. Something that not only rewards capable employees, but allows the government to dump the useless ones outside by the curb. Anarch, I think it at least possible that you are kidding me. First, note my response to the overly trusting and optimistic Ugh. Then consider various leaks that have emanated from "our" CIA, some of which you may have enjoyed. Then, and lastly, recall the two main players the Wilsons, both democrats, and in total how they acted. To save time may I ask you, were parties reversed, a Democratic President and two Republicans in place of the Wilsons, would you be so sympathetic ? The answer I may receive is already generating minor shudders.
…cause right now it looks like you’re simply trying to argue against each and every aspect of a bunch of different (large and complex) issues with no point other than “argue with the liberals”.
Oh, I disagree with that. Especially if a liberal said it.
Whatever:
1. The recent hearing hardly advanced the case that Ms. Plame was covert under the statute: despite the huzzus from the left, Waxman played waltz music and ducked the key issue – an opinion of CIA Counsel about the applicability of the relevant law would have meant alot more than a vague statement from Hayden that, per CIA employment practives, she was covert.
2. Joe Wilson’s early leaks to the press were factually deficient; the Admin had valid reasons to respond that had nothing to do with intimidating or discrediting him; his wife got dragged into the story because, contra his early and emphatic denials, she *was* involved in sending him, and folks who read the transcript for her account of how it was not her, it was the guy walking by that had the idea will laugh.
Word search on “bedtime” for a touching tale of a woman who had recommended Joe for a 1999 trip; was in the meeting when her boss approved him for a 2002 trip; wrote the email telling people about it; contacted Joe; and opened the formal meeting a week later, introducing him and the topic. Not involved.
Well – senior CIA and State officials told the White House she was involved, as per the trial or Libby’s indictment, point 7. (The “senior officer of the CIA” to which the indictment refers is Bob Grenier, who testified at the trial).
3. Fitzgerald did not mount a serious leak investigation, his favorable press and court filings notwithstanding.
Those would be the highlights.
The recent hearing hardly advanced the case that Ms. Plame was covert under the statute:
This has gotten ridiculous. If there’s somebody — anybody — in the Bush administration who can actually say that she was not covert under the statute, do you imagine their career would suffer if they simply came out and said she was not covert under the statute? But nobody has, when doing so would avoid a major continuing embarrassment for Bush et al. Can you think of any possible reason that everybody in the administration who could do this has not done so, apart from it being a lie they’d be caught at?
You’re grasping at straws. You’re drowning, man.
Joe Wilson’s early leaks to the press were factually deficient; the Admin had valid reasons to respond that had nothing to do with intimidating or discrediting him;
Then why didn’t they respond to disprove his lies instead of just smearing him? As it turned out, he was correct on all counts. If they were going to “respond” they had no good approach but to attack the messenger. Just for the sake of argument let’s imagine that his wife was central to getting him chosen for the job instead of somebody less qualified. So what? What does that have to do with his correct reports and the administration’s lies?
Fitzgerald did not mount a serious leak investigation,
Then Fitzgerald was not doing his job, he should have mounted a serious leak investigation. One more sleazy US Attorney not properly investigating the Bush administration, one more case where the bad guys got away with it. And now we have actual Republican human beings who claim that the Fitzgerald investigation indicates there was no wrongdoing! It’s so sad. Ah, did you have a point here?
I can’t deny you’re trying very very hard. And I can’t fault you for failing — you just have so very little to work with, the evidence is all against you. But thanks for playing.
I hope no one is offended if I skip right past the bulk of the straw man arguments – waste your time if you like, but I’ll waste mine differently.
But as an illustration:
Does Maguire really believe the Administartion, which could have avoided the whole thing by acting honestly from the beginning, cooperated with the investigation? Wow. That’s delusional.
Maguire really said that, relative to the many imaginary privileges invoked by the Clinton Admin, Bush was very cooperative.
At this writing, one guy was indicted for perjury – no conspiracy or obstruction charges against anyone else, and the investigation is essentially ended.
“Delusional” is not a rebuttal – tell me why I am mis-estimating Clinton’s cooperation, or how much of the Bush obstruction I missed. The latter is an invitation to free-floating fantasy evidently not fully supported by a two year investigation, but go ahead.
From dmbeaster on the forgeries (10:19 PM):
How can you get so much wrong about this?
…
The CIA makes no such claim [about a 2003 doscovery of the forgeries] concerning the IAEA.
Please – the Kristof quote you toss back at me in support of your argument was later recanted by Wilson.
But here is Hersh from March 2003:
Asked to respond, Harlow, the C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency had not obtained the actual documents until early this year [2003], after the President’s State of the Union speech and after the congressional briefings, and therefore had been unable to evaluate them in a timely manner. Harlow refused to respond to questions about the role of Britain’s MI6. Harlow’s statement does not, of course, explain why the agency left the job of exposing the embarrassing forgery to the I.A.E.A. It puts the C.I.A. in an unfortunate position: it is, essentially, copping a plea of incompetence.
Leave no stone unturned – for there might be a pony under the least of them!
– old Irish proverb, i think…
Maguire:
You believe that crap from Harlow? It never occurred to you that there is a lot of official lying going on to cover butts?
The CIA had the unequivocally had the documents by October, 2002. That is when they were given to the US embassy in Rome by the Italian reporter.
Was that their first receipt by the US? Only if you believe that the CIA, after receiving the initial reports from Italian secret service based on the forged documents in February, 2002, never asked for or got the documents from the Italian secret service — that they did not come into US possession until given to the embassy ostensibly by a private person. That is a laughable farce.
The February, 2002 intel concerning Iraq seeking uranium was extremely hot and set in motion a whole series of events because of its potential explosive value for the Cheney war effort. But you believe that no one bothered to get the documents from the Italians until they were given to the US embassy eight months later by a reporter as part of an alleged effort to sell them?
Even the specious Senate Report at page 58 notes that the INR (State Dept intel people for the readers) figured out the documents were bogus in October, 2002.
The idea that the CIA did not erxamine the docs and did not realize they were forged until disclosed by the IAEA cannot be believed. It is a story that certain CIA types are peddling, but it is almost certainly a lie.
Slarti:
Almost certainly not
Well, there you go. I’m certain that dmbeaster is privy to pretty much everything that British intelligence is privy to, and take that statement as Truth. Or almost Truth.
It’s almost the sort of inverse cherrypicking that Plame skeptics are being accused of.
Well, thanks for the snark and putting a false light on my remark.
All I am doing is summarizing what I have read on the subject. There is extensive discussion in many places on the web concerning this point — it was a big issue with regard to the Butler Review of British intel.
Go read it and get informed, or just have fun with baloney nitpicking. I have no more knowledge on this than what I have read, and all I tried to do was summarize what is out there on the topic.
I’m just followintg the h earing via dKos liveblogging.
Victoria Toensing is up now. She’s been one of the the GOP-Bush apologists, claiming over and over that Plame wasn’t covert and the IIPA law (which Toensing co-wrote) didn’t apply to her.
Her testimony should be interesting. For one thing, I’d like to know where the “Plame wasn’t covert!” meme got started. Maybe Toensing knows.
johnt: “Then, and lastly, recall the two main players the Wilsons, both democrats”
I think you’re confused. Wilson has worked for Republicans (earning high praise from Bush père) and Democrats, and only became partisan subsequent to his trip to Niger (pretty sensible given how bad the facts made the admin look).
Of course since the admin admitted the 16 words were wrong – “that accusations included in the president’s State of the Union address have turned out to be inaccurate” – Wilson’s motives are only interesting as a distraction from important matters.
Please, everybody, let’s be civil to Tom Maguire as OCS asks.
How do you get to this interpretation? “Her employment status with the CIA was classified information” seems pretty unambiguous to me.
Not really.
My husband worked for the Navy in a job where much of what he did was classified information.
The fact that he was in the Navy wasn’t classified.
The details of what he did for the Navy was (although not every detail, but in his words, it was too hard to keep up with just what was and wasn’t classified that he just opted to not discuss the details at all).
I would be willing to bet that there are people who work for the CIA whose employment there isn’t classified information, but the details of their job, what they do, are classified.
So I can see where employment status and “covert” could mean two different things as far as the law itself is concerned.
In the end I still don’t think this question has been fully answered.
In the end I still don’t think this question has been fully answered.
So… Plame lied? General Hayden lied? Is that what you’re saying?
Tom Maguire seems to imply that, all along, the Toensing/Comstock brigade has made the careful distinction between ‘covert as designated by the CIA’ and ‘covert as designated by the IIPA’. Several thousand yuk-yuk ‘deskjockey’ jokes make the disingenuousness of this rather obvious.
And while Toensing may have been up there at Davis’s request, not Waxman’s, that exchange showed the extent to which she’s been weaving supposed authority out of bullshit these last few years. And isn’t the only one.
Distinguishing between CIA-covert and IIPA-covert is also a bit odd, since the reason there’s an IIPA in the first place is to protect the covert agents and their networks, not to protect White Houses that expose covert agents and their networks.
When Plame said she never expected her own government to expose her, she wasn’t just being indignant. She was speaking to the illogic of legalistically parsing the IIPA in order to protect the people who did the exposing.
And, before the Plame skeptics snarkily ask me why exposing the NSA surveillance program wasn’t also, therefore, an unlawful exposure of a covert program, let me point out that the NSA surveillance program was <>itself illegal. That’s what whistle-blowing is, kids: exposing that which is illegal.
Has Plame been accused of a crime? And, no, I don’t mean the innuendos that Wingnuttia has come up with. I mean, accused of an actual crime by an actual legal authority.
Has Plame been accused of a crime?
This and related questions (“Has Fitzgerald been reprimanded for misconduct?”, “Has Wilson been indicted for outing his wife?”, “Has the CIA or a WH backer issued a rebuttal to Plame’s statement regarding her status?”) are important to tease away the truth from the detail oriented and complicated spin.
Look, if the “Plame skeptics” had such an airtight case, why is there nothing but blog posts supporting it? No investigations into wrongdoing. No civil suits. No criminal cases. Those who have the most to lose have the power to do something, ya know.
OCSteve is right: be civil to Tom M.
Also, iirc, the hearings made it quite clear that it wasn’t just what Plame did the was classified, it was that she worked for the CIA.
Hilzoy is right: “OCSteve is right: be civil to Tom M. ”
Although I think his logic is extremely faulty, and in answer to questions he brings up things that have little to no coorelation to the question being asked, he is, at least, not using any incendiary rhetoric and is not just dropping by, dumping some snark and then disappearing. He is actually trying to answer questions, and is not doubt very sincere about his beliefs.
And hilzoy does answer the question that was brought up by just me. Plame’s employment status was considered classified, not the material she worked with.
As has been pointed out several times, nobody in the administration has questioned this. Nobody in the administration has disputed her being covert. Their only argument is that those that “leaked” her working for the CIA were not aware that she was covert.
There is not one whit of even circumstantial evidence that she was not covert.
There is some justification about it appearing that the leak of some classified information appears all right to the left but not others. Fine, but then if you aare going to be consistant, either don’t be upset about the other information, which had little to no impact on our national security, or be upset about the leaking of Plame’s status, which ahd a definite impact on our security, as well as being of possible deadly consequnece to people.
When I worked in DoD in the General Counsel’s office, many many years ago, it was widely known that there were folks who worked for the CIA, but even the fact of their employment was classified. So they would say, when asked at cocktail parties for example, where they worked, that they were consultants for X or Y company. And you would not be the wiser that they were in fact CIA, other than at that time there weren’t as many actual consultants as there are now, so you might have some question, but you would let it lie, because you would get no further information.
Slightly OT, but I will tell you that I had a friend interview at the CIA at that time, and not make it. She worked as a facial reconstructionist in the midwest and created new parts for people’s faces who suffered from cancer and other flesh eating diseases. I knew that’s what she did in her regular job, I was not informed as to what her CIA job would be and had she gotten it, I doubt I would have known that either.
Although I think his logic is extremely faulty, and in answer to questions he brings up things that have little to no coorelation to the question being asked, he is, at least, not using any incendiary rhetoric and is not just dropping by, dumping some snark and then disappearing. He is actually trying to answer questions, and is not doubt very sincere about his beliefs.
Exactly. I keep trying to bring more right-wingers over here for all you lefties to beat on. 🙂
I’m outnumbered 99-1, it’s tough to be a wingnut these days…
OCSteve:
I’m outnumbered 99-1, it’s tough to be a wingnut these days…
It’s not just that the advocates outnumber you, so do the facts.
rilkefan: Indexing at 0? I knew there was a reason I liked you…
it’s tough to be a wingnut these days…
As it ought to be. It should have been a lot tougher to be a wingnut over the last ten years or so; the country would have been a lot better off.
Just one single libel lawsuit that collected ten million dollars from each radio station that broadcast Rush Limbaugh would have been a giant benefit for humankind. It’s sad.
and when the night is cloudy
there is still a light that shines on me
shine until tomorrow…
johnt: I think it at least possible that you are kidding me.
You would be wrong.
First, note my response to the overly trusting and optimistic Ugh.
Ugh has been called many things, some of them by me :), but that ain’t one of them, nor should it be.
Then, and lastly, recall the two main players the Wilsons, both democrats, and in total how they acted.
Wrong again: as noted above they were appointed by the first President Bush, and only changed party affiliations after the administration’s malfeasance.
To save time may I ask you, were parties reversed, a Democratic President and two Republicans in place of the Wilsons, would you be so sympathetic ?
You mean, if we flipped a magic button and all Democrats became Republicans and all Republicans became Democrats? So President Al Gore (or whoever) would have lied the country into a war of choice, botched the aftermath, ruined our foreign policy, critically degraded our military, tampered with the intelligence process, tried to roll back science and annihilate any notion of expertise or fact that conflicts with his pretedermined, Manichean, anti-enlightenment and generally puerile ideology? You’re goddamn right I’d be supporting the Cheneys (or whoever) for blowing the whistle on those lies and I’d support the destruction of the political machine that reduced us to this state.
Which brings me to my question: wouldn’t you? Or more pointedly: why don’t you?
The answer I may receive is already generating minor shudders.
I should hope so. One’s conscience, however stunted, can be a terrible burden.
I agree with hilzoy et al’s call for civility towards Tom Maguire, irrespective of his political beliefs. Civility received should be civility given, even if he’s, well, wrong 😉
On which note, though, a minor query:
Tom Maguire: tell me why I am mis-estimating Clinton’s cooperation, or how much of the Bush obstruction I missed. The latter is an invitation to free-floating fantasy evidently not fully supported by a two year investigation, but go ahead.
Apart from being much longer, isn’t that — a multi-year investigation based on a “free-floating fantasy” — exactly what happened to Clinton in the 90s?
Spartacvs: It’s not just that the advocates outnumber you, so do the facts.
Seems that we all have our own “facts” these days.
J Thomas: As it ought to be. It should have been a lot tougher to be a wingnut over the last ten years or so; the country would have been a lot better off.
I’ve said my mea culpas. Repeatedly. I have my portion of this burden to bear and I own it. Period.
One more thing: I am surprised not to see Tom Maguire posting over at FireDogLake. I think we can agree that FDL is the site with the most expertise, knowledge and analysis of Ms. Plame’s outing and reaction thereto. Why has Mr. Maguire not taken it up with MT Wheeler, Christy Hardin Smith, looseheadprop and all the others there, and posted his theories at FDL?
For me, the answer is obvious.
Sorry, I have not caught up on the thread, but:
1. I thank OCSteve for the thought;
2. My last gasp on the Niger forgeries sidebar – from dmbeaster:
You believe that crap from Harlow? It never occurred to you that there is a lot of official lying going on to cover butts?
My subtly nuanced initial comment was “the CIA claims to have learned they were forgeries after submitting them to the IAEA in early 2003. You have a real headline there if you can prove the early 2002 date.”
See how that slyly alludes to the possibility of an earlier date? I am well aware that eriposte has all sorts of speculation, thanks – if you can prove it, you have a real headline, as noted.
So if you want to prove the CIA debunked the forgeries but forgot to tell the rest of the Administration, feel free – I have never quite caught how that ties in to “Bush Lied”, but I am sure someone will explain it to me.
I’ve said my mea culpas. Repeatedly. I have my portion of this burden to bear and I own it. Period.
Good on ya’ OCS. My welcome (if a commenter can do that) to you here was less than cordial, but I’ve seen the error of my ways, please keep hanging out.
Why has Mr. Maguire not taken it up with MT Wheeler, Christy Hardin Smith, looseheadprop and all the others there, and posted his theories at FDL?
Not speaking for him – just me. Comments that go against the grain over there have a habit of disappearing or being edited. I know that from personal experience.
Christy tends to throw out red meat on the front page but I always found her to be quite reasonable in the comments. Jane is just too far gone however.
TM linked to Wheeler consistently, many times throughout. I followed the links even after I swore the site off. I read a lot of her stuff because Tom linked it.
Ugh:My welcome (if a commenter can do that) to you here was less than cordial
Actually, I don’t recall you ever being less than cordial to me. But I appreciate the thought.
Why has Mr. Maguire not taken it up with MT Wheeler, Christy Hardin Smith, looseheadprop and all the others there, and posted his theories at FDL?
Shorter version and forget my anecdotes – TM has his own blog and engaged them their for months, always linking to their posts when he did so.
Would less than cordial be concentrate?
just me: My husband worked for the Navy in a job where much of what he did was classified information.
The fact that he was in the Navy wasn’t classified.
hilzoy and others have touched on this, but I don’t think the details of his job fall under the heading of “employment status”. When I hear “employment status” I think “does this person work for entity X or not?” So, based on what you have told us, your husband’s employment status with the Navy would not be classified, if I am not mistaken.
So I can see where employment status and “covert” could mean two different things as far as the law itself is concerned.
If the individual’s employment status (i.e. who she works for) is classified information, then that person is under cover. This seems pretty cut and dried to me. What the legal penalties are for exposing this information are a more complicated question, of course.
OCSteve:Seems that we all have our own “facts” these days.
Unfortunately that would appear to be the case. However, I’m a preponderance of the evidence kinda guy when speculating on political liabilities once it has been determined by creditable and legitimate legal authorities that criminal liabilities are no longer at large. To my mind there can be little doubt that the preponderance of the evidence would indicate that senior members of the Bush Administration outed Plame as a CIA officer as part of a smear campaign against her husband who had challenged the Administration’s rationale on WMD intelligence in an op-ed.
Spartacvs: However, I’m a preponderance of the evidence kinda guy
Damnit, I hate it when you guys make too much sense.
If the individual’s employment status (i.e. who she works for) is classified information, then that person is under cover. This seems pretty cut and dried to me. What the legal penalties are for exposing this information are a more complicated question, of course.
Posted by: Gromit | March 18, 2007 at 07:21 PM
—————–
This is the basic situation as we have it.
Valerie Plame’s name landed in a column by Robert Novak. The CIA balked at this and asked the DOJ to investigate. The prosecutor had to determined if a crime was committed. To do this, the first thing he had to establish, under the statute in question is, was Valerie covert? It appears that he satisfied himself that she was. It also appears that he satisfied the judges that she was (thus forcing the reporters to testify).
Tom’s problem is that he seems to believe that the prosecutor was incorrect, at least. My question to Tom would be – what have you done to correct this? If you believe that none of this is valid, which you seem to believe – what action have you taken? Shouldn’t some complaint be filed? Can you do that?
And just incidentally, I think everyone has been pretty civil to Tom. But that’s just me.
Me: What the legal penalties are for exposing this information are a more complicated question, of course.
Yikes! I promise, I do know how to make subject and verb agree.
Apologies for not getting back to this sooner, but…that I had to work today says much about the business of life, of late.
The gap between self-perceived cleverness and actual cleverness increases with the number of beers ingested, evidently. But: you appeared to know something the rest of us don’t, or “almost certainly” doesn’t mean anything. That’s pretty much all I wanted to convey, and I did it badly. That aside, we can discuss your point further, if you wish.
My two-ish cents in for giving Tom some respect. He’s done a LOT of research into this, and he’s debated this most civilly, even with people who show up at his blog looking for a fight.
That should have read: The normally large gap…. Please adjust your perceptions accordingly.
After all these pleas for civility I will endeavor to keep (some of) my thoughts to myself. However, stuck in my head is an old Mae West joke that begins with a judge asking her “Young lady, are you trying to show contempt for this court?”.
Oh, well.
From anarch:
Then, and lastly, recall the two main players the Wilsons, both democrats, and in total how they acted.
Wrong again: as noted above they were appointed by the first President Bush, and only changed party affiliations after the administration’s malfeasance.
Wrong again your bad self – Joe, who had been on the NSC under Clinton, gave $2,000 to Gore in 1999; he had to resubmit this as $1,000 each from him and Val, which later led to the outing of Brewster-Jennings.
From Moe99:
One more thing: I am surprised not to see Tom Maguire posting over at FireDogLake. I think we can agree that FDL is the site with the most expertise, knowledge and analysis of Ms. Plame’s outing and reaction thereto. Why has Mr. Maguire not taken it up with MT Wheeler, Christy Hardin Smith, looseheadprop and all the others there, and posted his theories at FDL?
For me, the answer is obvious.
And that answer is what? Let me just puff myself up with this Times blog excerpt:
Tom Maguire, whose hyperdetailed coverage of every twist in the trial has made him the conservative counterweight to Hamsher’s crew…
Yada, yada. For something more lively, you can see how much luck the firepups, aided by Ms. Wheeler, have with me in this thread. Or, I have some thoughts about Ms. Hardin Smith here.
My experience is that they have better success rallying their base than debating me, but judge for yourselves.
Oh, OCSteve mentions that comments against the flow at firedoglake sometimes are moderated out of existence – that has happened with me on non-Plame stuff (Christy denies it, but they have a lot of moderators there), so I am always a bit leery about commenting there myself.
From gromit:
If the individual’s employment status (i.e. who she works for) is classified information, then that person is under cover. This seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Per the statute, to be covert an intelligence officer must both (a) have classified status (Plame did) *AND* (b) have served overseas within the last five years.
“Served overseas” is part of the controversy – lefties think a flight overseas on Agency business covers it; Victoria Toensing (Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee when the bill was written) says that “service overseas” means a posting overseas, which Plame did not have in the last five years.
Who’s right? My official editorial position is that this element of the law has never been tested in court, no one has briefed it, and no judge has ruled, so who “knows”?
However, the law was passed to respond to officers with foreign postings being outed (locals can often figure out who is CIA with a Foreign Service cover) and it was a compromise with Senators who were worried about the First Amendment and stifling legitimate criticism of the CIA (remember, the Church Committee of 1975/6 had just concluded the CIA was the root of all evil in the world), so an expansive view of CIA protection is probably not what they had in mind.
All that said, at the CIA itself, “classified” and “covert” appear to be essentially interchangeable – hence the confusion. At the hearing, Ms. Plame said she did not herself know her legal status, as I noted earlier.
So if you want to prove the CIA debunked the forgeries but forgot to tell the rest of the Administration, feel free – I have never quite caught how that ties in to “Bush Lied”, but I am sure someone will explain it to me.
If you’re willing to believe that the CIA debunked the forgeries but later lied about doing so, then what? The obvious reason for the CIA to lie about that is to cover up for Bush.
And if they’re covering up for Bush, then the obvious probably sequence of events is that they debunked the forgeries, told Cheney they’d done it, Cheney told them to fuck themselves, it got leaked, Cheney told them to fuck themselves some more and outed Plame, and tame CIA bureaucrats lied about the whole thing.
I don’t have any proof that that happened. Here’s the other obvious way it could have been — the CIA didn’t debunk the forgeries and basicly didn’t know anything. Cheney got disgusted with them and chose his own men to find the evidence, and they picked up on evidence that the CIA had (rightly) rejected. Some CIA guys leaked about the incompetents in the OSP who were replacing them. Then Wilson leaked about the mess they were making, and Cheney tried to cripple the CIA (perhaps not starting until then). If you can’t use the CIA to make up stuff, then what’s the point of having it?
None of these people are particularly trustworthy and we can’t reliably tell what happened, but I don’t see a third story that’s as plausible as either of these two.
There are a collection of logic mistakes people make about it. For one, the CIA didn’t have to actually possess the forged documents to know they were wrong.
Do we know that Wilson was the only one leaking? Things attributed to Wilson might have come from other sources, people who would be in more trouble if they were outed. For example, the guy who first showed the documents were forged. It would be crass of Wilson to say “I didn’t say that” and encourage the government to put pressure on the journalists to reveal their other sources.
However it went, we now know the Bush administration was wrong on the facts. They assumed Saddam had a nuclear program and they could get away with lying about it after they found the real thing. Whoever was leaking from the CIA turned out to be right, or at least far less wrong. Cheney’s people should have listened to them. Except that wouldn’t have gotten Cheney his war on.
Why didn’t we find nukes in iraq anyway? The iraqis couldn’t do anything to stop us from planting some. Then the US public would have had an entirely different attitude. If we assumed the iraqi government had hidden some nukes, they would then themselves have the status of terrorists with nukes. We wouldn’t leave iraq until we tracked down every bomb. We might insist that iraq be permanently demilitarised and under our military protection, like japan. And when we assumed that every insurgent might be linked to the ones with the nukes, we wouldn’t have a lot of sympathy for civilians caught in the crossfire. Get every insurgent no matter how many civilians get killed with them.
But something stopped it. Some honorable people, probably on the search teams who were looking for iraqi nukes, refused to go along regardless of rewards and punishments and they also refused to be conveniently killed. And except for them it might not have come unraveled.
“Me? I’m dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It’s the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they’re going to do something incredibly… stupid. ”
Tom Maguire: Per the statute, to be covert an intelligence officer must both (a) have classified status (Plame did) *AND* (b) have served overseas within the last five years.
The definitions in the statute are limited in scope, presumably so as to not make it overly broad. It also defines “intelligence agencies” in such a way that limits it to certain US intelligence agencies (those operating at the time of the law’s passage, more or less). Is this evidence that the OSS wasn’t or that the FSB isn’t an intelligence agency? Such an argument would strike me as pretty silly.
All that said, at the CIA itself, “classified” and “covert” appear to be essentially interchangeable – hence the confusion.
I doubt Gen. Hayden is confused about the difference between legal and real-world definitions at this point in the game. And I really doubt this more common-sense usage is limited to the CIA, which, correct me if I’m wrong, seems to be your implication.
At the hearing, Ms. Plame said she did not herself know her legal status, as I noted earlier.
Yet she stated clearly and emphatically that she was a covert operative, suggesting that the applicability of the IIPA’s definition might be limited. In other words, the lawyers can untangle the narrowly-tailored definitions in the IIPA to decide if a crime was committed, but back in the real world this outing had very real consequences both for her and for ongoing intelligence operations.
Anarch: “rilkefan: Indexing at 0? I knew there was a reason I liked you…”
That, and not the case of Haut-Brion?
I have a book of poems to be titled _Counting From Zero_ underway, in the way of such things. I’ll set aside a copy for you.
The obvious reason for the CIA to lie about that is to cover up for Bush.
And if they’re covering up for Bush, then the obvious probably sequence of events is that they debunked the forgeries, told Cheney they’d done it, Cheney told them to fuck themselves, it got leaked, Cheney told them to fuck themselves some more and outed Plame, and tame CIA bureaucrats lied about the whole thing.
Uh huh. Then Joe Wilson told Nick Kristof and Walter Pincus that he had debunked the forgeries. But when the Senate asked him about it, he denied everything, because… uh, because mean Dick Cheney threatened to make things really bad for his already outed wife.
So really, Joe Wilson *did* debunk the forgeries and told reporters about it, then let himself be laughed off of television and kicked off the Kerry campaign to cover up for Cheney. Got it.
There are a collection of logic mistakes people make about it. For one, the CIA didn’t have to actually possess the forged documents to know they were wrong.
Sure, and Joe could have stuck to his story – the CIA did have summary docs, after all. Why did he back down? Check his book (hmm, IIRC it is the intro to the paperback, which came out after the Senate report) – why the change in story?
Is this evidence that the OSS wasn’t or that the FSB isn’t an intelligence agency? Such an argument would strike me as pretty silly.
I am at sea as to your point. The limited scope of the statute would suggest that it is not enough for an officer to have a covert feeling, or even to be told he is covert – certain legal requirement must be satisfied for an agent to be “covert” under the statute. That is relevant for prosecutors looking to apply the statute, but not relevant to an officer trying to preserve his cover (is that your point?).
I doubt Gen. Hayden is confused about the difference between legal and real-world definitions at this point in the game.
I have no doubt that both he and Rep. Waxman are well aware of the distinction.
So why did Waxman’s statement say this:
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.
“Employment status”? What about her legal status? We all agree that CIA considered her to be “covert” – the question before the house was, would the law consider her to be covert?
Why didn’t they just answer the question? Why the Waxman waltz music?
A much stronger statement would have been, “CIA Counsel have studied Ms. Plame’s file and the relevant law and conclude that she was coveret as defiend by the IIPA.” Why so shy? Do you think Waxman forgot to ask, or is it possible he didn’t like the answer?
Yet she stated clearly and emphatically that she was a covert operative, suggesting that the applicability of the IIPA’s definition might be limited.
Are we back to the idea that she may have been doing dangerous and important undercover work regardless of the law’s definitions? No kidding, and, hmm, so what?
As I noted way upthread, the key point raised by David Corn and picked up by Chuck Schumer in July 2003 was that her outing may have been a criminal act. The calls for an investigation and for a special counsel related to the belief that a crime had been committed.
To tell us in 2007 that, well, OK, there was no crime since she was not covered by the statute (a judgment that could have been made in 2003, and quite likely was) but her outing was still a Bad Thing is a bit late and strikes me as a major re-adjustment of the goal posts.
Well. Her outing was an unfortunate accident, but there was no evidence at trial that anyone outside the CIA knew she was classified, and the State guys thought she was *not* classified.
And none of the CIA witnesses whom we heard from or about (Grenier, Harlow, Schmall) said they warned anyone about her status.
I’ve said my mea culpas. Repeatedly. I have my portion of this burden to bear and I own it. Period.
Well done. Go forth and sin no more.
What a bizarre, bizarre attitude. For those of us not playing inside baseball, I think what matters is what happened, the harm done, and what this incident says about the people we consider our employees. Have you no moral compass, sir?
I get tired of reading all the half truths and incorrect conclusions that have been posited here by Mr. Maguire and even though OCSteve seems to think that FDL is mean, I would steer both of them to that blog today as there is yet another complete dissection of an aspect of the IIPA from which they can have all their questions answered.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/19/how-to-betray-americas-spies/#more-7876
FDL does not suffer fools gladly, which may be the source of the irritation.
Uh huh. Then Joe Wilson told Nick Kristof and Walter Pincus that he had debunked the forgeries. But when the Senate asked him about it, he denied everything, because… uh, because mean Dick Cheney threatened to make things really bad for his already outed wife.
If we accept the rest of the story, the more likely reason is that the *CIA* told him not to. And they could certainly make it hot for him — if necessary they could lie about it and say he was lying about everything.
So really, Joe Wilson *did* debunk the forgeries and told reporters about it, then let himself be laughed off of television and kicked off the Kerry campaign to cover up for Cheney. Got it.
Many stranger things have happened. Like, we could assume that Gonzales actually didn’t know anything that was going on in his department….
“There are a collection of logic mistakes people make about it. For one, the CIA didn’t have to actually possess the forged documents to know they were wrong.”
Sure, and Joe could have stuck to his story – the CIA did have summary docs, after all. Why did he back down?
Let’s first try the most charitable possibility. Joe heard some details about the documents and without actually seeing them he knew that the names and dates were wrong, just as he later claimed. However, his results didn’t make it up the chain in the CIA and were never presented to Cheney’s office. Cheney, remember, had been telling the CIA to send him only evidence *for* Saddam’s nukes, not evidence against. So if that got investigated there would be another embarrassing episode for CIA. Like — back in the cuban missile crisis, a low-level CIA analyst knew months ahead of time that the missiles were coming. He had pictures of the concrete pads for the launchers. He had pictures of the missiles themselves on ships. He kept sending his data up the chain of command, and it stopped there. Then when the crisis broke, the CIA sent all his data to Kennedy. They were heroes for having that data in a crisis. The analyst’s boss got a bonus. The boss’s boss got a raise. The boss’ boss’s boss got a promotion. The boss’s boss’s boss’s boss got a medal. The analyst got drunk. It would be very embarrassing for the CIA to have to admit they knew the info was wrong but they didn’t tell Cheney.
Now try a worse version. They did send the info to Cheney and he told them to fuck themselves. And if they told the truth about how he invented the war on no credible evidence at all, he would go after the whole CIA. Great big funding cuts at the least. And a great big purge, bigger than the one they actually had.
And remember that the CIA wasn’t full of liberal democrats who wanted to sabotage the government, they were a giant bureaucracy full of democrats and republicans and apolitical employees, whose primary allegiance was to their own sections in the CIA. Say Plame’s old boss told her “If this stuff comes out they’ll shut down the whole section!” that’s where her loyalties would be.
So, what’s the plausible alternative? Is it that Wilson simply lied the first time around, and then when he started to get called on his lies he backed off? The retired ambassador was just stupidly making up lies because he thought nobody would check?
I note that your link here comes from the Weekly Standard. I really prefer to link to original sources because these deadline-oriented reporters tend to get a lot of stuff wrong. And then they repeat each other. But of course often it’s hard to find originals online to quote from. Here’s another like yours, from the LATimes:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes975.html
The french intelligence services repeatedly warned the Bush administration that there was no evidence of Saddam trying to get uranium from niger. The wording of the last request from the CIA for assistance on that strongly resembled the wording of a document the French knew was forged. The CIA had seen that same forged document earlier and refused to buy it because they knew it was forged.
It seems to me that if you want to conclude that the CIA didn’t know what was going on, you have to completely reject this newspaper report — which is based on interviews with a former CIA agent and with the retired chief of french counter-intelligence, whose claims overlap a lot. Why would this frenchman lie to the media? I suppose he might have political reasons to make all this up. It seems more likely he’s telling the truth than that Cheney was telling the truth, or the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee report, whose conclusions are highly dubious.
What we get is that the CIA and our other intelligence services and foreign intelligence services found no credible evidence about an iraqi nuclear program, and neither did anybody else, and they got lots of evidence from multiple sources that the claims of an iraqi nuclear program were false. And somehow the Bush administration didn’t get the word.
The question is whether the CIA hid what they found from the Bush admninistration for unknown reasons, or whether the Bush administration refused to look at the evidence. And there were leaks at the time that said Cheney particularly was refusing to look at the evidence.
The Bush administration led us into this war using utterly bogus information. And past the details about whether Plame recommended Wilson and whether Wilson disproved the bogus documents etc, the question is whether the Bush administration knew it was all bogus or not.
Here’s what it’s like: Say that Cheney announces that today the sky is orange with green and black polka-dots. And the question is, did he look at the sky and see that it was blue and then announce a lie, or did he close his eyes and refuse to look and order everybody not to tell him before he announced it?
There was no credible evidence. And Cheney’s minions made up some fake evidence out of, basicly, nothing. After the CIA failed to manufacture fake evidence for him.
Did Cheney know they were lying? Did he care?
Should we believe anything this administration tells us about iran?
Should we believe any single thing this administration tells us about anything, until it’s been verified by a trustworthy source?
“Then, and lastly, recall the two main players the Wilsons, both democrats, and in total how they acted.”
“Wrong again: as noted above they were appointed by the first President Bush, and only changed party affiliations after the administration’s malfeasance.”
TM: “Wrong again your bad self – Joe, who had been on the NSC under Clinton, gave $2,000 to Gore in 1999; he had to resubmit this as $1,000 each from him and Val, which later led to the outing of Brewster-Jennings.”
You presume incredibly generous standards of proof for your claims. “X and Y are z.” “X has worked for !z so ‘X and Y are z’ is wrong”. “X gave money to a z once and is therefore a z”. Do you find that last bit at all compelling?
Esp. since I believe Wilson gave to Republican campaigns as well.
Tom Maguire: That is relevant for prosecutors looking to apply the statute, but not relevant to an officer trying to preserve his cover (is that your point?).
You seem to be forgetting about the entire rest of the national security apparatus, about all those public servants with security clearances who have signed agreements promising to protect classified information. You skip back and forth between prosecutors and the CIA, but seem to conveniently ignore the folks in places like, oh, say, the White House who are privy to this sort of sensitive information and thus play an important role in protecting people’s lives. I can see how this gaping blind spot might serve your purposes for argumentation, but how it serves your intellectual integrity is a bit less clear.
Even if the letter of the IIPA wasn’t violated (and we have no clear way of knowing if this is the case, that I can see), why do the people involved in this leak, which served no higher moral purpose or public interest (unless you consider the intimidation of an administration critic and otherwise exemplary public servant to be in the public interest), why do these crass and at best careless individuals still have their jobs, much less their security clearances? (Libby excepted of course, though we know that his loss of his position had nothing directly to do with his role in outing Plame.)
Do you really think the law is the limit to both morality and accountability? I’m trying to imagine you as an employer who has found out that an employee has been engaging in deliberate or reckless practices that endanger the operation of your business, or perhaps even lives, but which is not covered by any statutory prohibitions. Would you then shrug your shoulders and say “well, no laws were broken, so I guess you can keep your job”?
To tell us in 2007 that, well, OK, there was no crime since she was not covered by the statute (a judgment that could have been made in 2003, and quite likely was) but her outing was still a Bad Thing is a bit late and strikes me as a major re-adjustment of the goal posts.
Yeah, because to tell us in 2007 that you’re all about the IIPA’s definition of ‘covert’ and not at all about Valerie Wilson being just some blonde deskjockey who everyone knew about, and who somehow had the power to authorize foreign missions, doesn’t sound at all like you’re busily converting the stadium to host an entirely different sport.
TM: “Wrong again your bad self – Joe, who had been on the NSC under Clinton, gave $2,000 to Gore in 1999; he had to resubmit this as $1,000 each from him and Val, which later led to the outing of Brewster-Jennings.”
I love this. All of a sudden, the outing of Brewster-Jennings is the fault of the Wilsons. The mind boggles at the stretches that some people will go to absolve themselves or those they support of responisbility.
Assume for a moment that there had been no donations. The moment that her being CIA became known, data bases across the world were being checked and Brewster-Jennings was outed. This is the cover company she “worked for”. She was known for that.
It was the outing of her identity that led to the outing of Brewster-Jennings, along with who knows how many “employees” of the firm. Nothing more and nothing less.
Yes, according to opensecrets.org, Joseph C Wilson IV gave $2000 to Al Gore on 3/26/1999, somehow took back $1000 on 4/22/1999 (maybe correcting a clerical error?), and then gave $1000 to George W. Bush on 5/20/1999. Quite the partisan.
The most likely conclusion at this point is that Plame satisfied the IIPA’s definitions, but that the barrier to prosecuting anyone under the IIPA was the requirement that the defendant have actual knowledge of Plame’s covert status.
The thing about Maguire and the other counter-Plameologists is that they make the repeated mistake of acting like it’s all about THEM.
They argue that she wasn’t covert because she hadn’t been on a mission outside the country within 5 years, but of course, none of them have the first clue whether she had or hadn’t. What they mean is, no one has given ME the details of her secret CIA missions, so I’m entitled to assume they didn’t happen. (With Plame’s testimony last week, coupled with Fitzgerald’s repeated statements that she was covert, have we finally put this one to bed? Apparently not.)
They claim that the Wilson’s campaign contributions led to the ouster of Brewster-Jennings, because THEY first heard about Brewster-Jennings by rummaging through donation reports. Never mind that Plame’s overseas contacts – the people who we actually want to keep her CIA employment secret from – associated Plame with Brewster-Jennings not because they read it at opensecrets.org, but because that was the company she told them she worked for. Once Plame was outed, Brewster-Jennings was automatically compromised, regardless of whether there had ever been a campaign donation.
It’s really quite amazing that Maguire – who seems to be a smart guy, and has spent an awful lot of time on this story – would argue that Joe Wilson erred by not keeping his wife’s COVER STORY secret enough. That’s right, he listed her as an employee of Brewster-Jennings, which “led to its outing”! Never mind that the CIA wanted the entire world to believe that Valerie Plame worked for some company called Brewster-Jennings. Shame on you, Joe Wilson, for donating to Democrats.
I am no Plameologist, so i’m incapable of sorting out when and whether Wilson lied or to whom.
but there are enough lawyers around here, myself included, who appreciate that precision matters, especially in interpreting finely crafted statutes.
Covert != Classified.
“Covert” has a specific meaning per the IIPA. “Classified” exists in a completely different statutory scheme.
It seems to me entirely likely that whether Plame was “covert” or the leak of her identity violated the IIPA was not a resolvable question due to Libby’s obstruction of justice.
It also seems to me entirely likely that Plame’s employment status was “classified”. But since the Executive controls classification and declassification it seems to me entirely likely that there was no crime committed because Cheney / Bush HAD THE AUTHORITY to declassify (ie, leak) her employment status.
So, what the Admin did was (a) under the IIPA, perhaps illegal, but impossible to prove; (b) likely legal, under classification statutes; and (c) really, really, really immoral.
Mr. McGuire, any response?
Tom Maguire,
I’ve now waded through this entire thread, and appreciate your willingness to engage with all these questions. Still, I’m puzzled by what appears to be your general perspective, so when you have time, I hope you can answer a few questions of mine that others haven’t asked:
• Do you believe high-level members of the Bush administration consciously lied when making their case for war with Iraq — particularly regarding the available evidence regarding Iraq’s purported WMD and ties to Al Qaeda?
• If your answer to that question is yes, does it make you deeply angry? If your answer is no, does it make you deeply angry that — four years after the war began — there’s been no completed investigation into whether the Bush administration consciously lied?
• Does any aspect of the behavior of the Bush administration in the Plame matter make you deeply angry?
Francis: “Covert” has a specific meaning per the IIPA.
It does, and Tom Maguire has been hammering this point over and over. But doesn’t “covert” also have an operational meaning in the intelligence community that doesn’t hinge on the particulars of the IIPA? If the question is “was the IIPA violated” then the former definition is critical. If the question is “was a covert operative outed as an act of political intimidation” then is the fulfillment of the requirements of that particular law even an issue?
It seems to me entirely likely that whether Plame was “covert” or the leak of her identity violated the IIPA was not a resolvable question due to Libby’s obstruction of justice.
Being neither a Plameologist nor a lawyer, I realize I’m out of my depth here, but how do you figure that whether she was covert was not resolvable? It seems to me that this would be easily resolved by simply asking the CIA. That potential violation of the IIPA would be harder to resolve makes perfect sense, on the other hand.
Being neither a Plameologist nor a lawyer, I realize I’m out of my depth here, but how do you figure that whether she was covert was not resolvable?
You are quite right about this. Libby wouldn’t be in a position to obscure her covert (or non-covert) status no matter how hard he tried to obstruct justice.
The tougher issue, as I mention above, is proving that the leaker(s) was aware of Plame’s covert status. Maybe, as Maguire postulates, it was all just a big accident. But that wouldn’t mean she wasn’t covert!
It’s clear that Plame was covert by the CIA’s standards, and Libby couldn’t change that. What he could do would be to make it very unclear who knew she was covert. If nobody in the White House knew, then they’re negligent in not finding out — but still they didn’t intentionally violate the law.
If somebody knew — Cheney, say — and told something that sounded scandalous to a bunch of people who didn’t know, and they spread it around then Cheney was highly negligent but nobody else was breaking the law. And Cheney perhaps had the right to decide on the spur of the moment to declassify Plame and burn all her contacts. After all, if they didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear, what good were they?
And there’s a question who told first, and did they know. All of this could get snarled if Libby lied enough, he could make it completely unclear who learned what from whom, and who learned it first, and who told it first.
It’s unclear to me why Fitzgerald didn’t go after any of the other liars and perjurers. But his approach with mafia types was to get somebody for perjury and then get them to tell the truth with that leverage. If he tried the same thing here, he didn’t actually have much leverage on Libby since Bush can pardon him in December 2008 at the latest. Libby has a whole lot more to gain by staying quiet than he does by singing. There’s no witness protection program for him. Fitzgerald’s ability to punish or reward him is strictly limited. Bush’s ability to punish or reward him hsa far fewer limits.
J Thomas- Republican administrations usually get away with pardoning their criminal acomplices, but that generally means that they have gotten away with criminal conspiracy. Fitzgerald may have more leverage than we think if he is prepared to charge President Bush for a criminal act(after he leaves office) if he pardons Scooter.
Having read about 3/4 of the latest document dump, all I can say is: I really wish that they would arrange these things chronologically, and that they’d present just one (1) copy of each email exchange, rather than an email, followed by a reply that says ‘sure!’ and then quotes the original email, followed by a reply that says ‘Great!’, then ‘sure’, then the original email, and so on for what seems like infinitely many emails.
Based on 1-7 pp. 16-18, however, if I were any of a number of people in the DoJ, I’d be firing Kyle Sampson, for drafting a letter that goes out under the signature of the Acting Assistant AG to Harry Reid, which contains flat-out lies (e.g., “The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin.” Hahahahaha.)