They could be now .. but in the beginning they weren't and I can't see any reason why they .. or at least Joe wouldn't be a witness
But I just can't find any reporting of it
I'm looking...
******
Federal prosecutors have been trying to determine whether a crime was committed when someone released the identity of Valerie Plame to the news media. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell have also been interviewed, though none was summoned before the grand jury, according to The Associated Press.
snip
"Karl went to testify to do his part in finding out who leaked this information," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN.
snip
"With two weeks to go before the election, the American people are still in the dark about how it is that their White House leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to the press, jeopardizing the life of this agent and possibly violating federal law," Kerry campaign senior adviser Joe Lockhart said in a statement.
"Instead of hiding behind the lawyers he so often likes to criticize, George Bush should direct Karl Rove and anyone else involved to go to the White House briefing room and come clean about their role in this insidious act. If the president sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of this potential crime, he'd stop the White House foot dragging and fully cooperate with this investigation."
http://tinyurl.com/dt2rl
Ambassador Wilson: White House Operatives Are Traitors
Mon Apr 25th, 2005 at 20:09:19 PDT
former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed CIA administrators have denied ex-CIA undercover operative and WMD expert Valerie Plame permission to publish an op-ed defending herself in the New York Times. Wilson also indicated he and his wife may seek legal action against administration officials. Calling the Bush administration "the most belligerent and secretive government in my lifetime," Wilson said he believes White House officials orchestrated a smear campaign "to discourage others from coming forward."
snip
I have said all along that the compromise of Valerie's covert identity was part of a conspiracy hatched in the White House to smear and discredit me, even as the administration had acknowledged the day after my original op-ed appeared in the New York Times that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the state of the union address."
That smear campaign continued throughout the summer of 2004, fueled by Republican staffers of the Senate Select committee on Intelligence, three Republican senators and their specious charges in a letter appended to the committee report, and a complicit (or lazy) Washington Post journalist named Susan Schmidt, who apparently couldn't be bothered to even read the Senate report. Had she done so, she would have learned that almost four months before the infamous State of the Union address, both the Senate Select committee and the White House had been warned by the heads of the American intelligence community not to use the British allegation because in the view of our $40-billion-a-year intelligence community, the British had "stretched" and "exaggerated" the claim.
What can one say about a government that acts in such a fashion against its own citizens? The first amendment of the constitution, in addition to guaranteeing freedom of the press and of speech, also guarantees the right of a citizen to petition the government to redress a grievance. This administration has arguably abridged my right to do so with its smear campaign.
Earlier, you charged that the leak originated solely to discredit you because of your criticism of the Bush administration. The White House denied that. Do you now feel vindicated?
My speculation was always that the campaign was to discourage others from coming forward. And that has clearly worked. Federal employees have been silenced and intimidated. A senior administration official told the Washington Post in September 2003 that the motive was revenge.
How petty.
Will you be disappointed if the grand jury fails to find a prosecutable offense?
The grand jury has not yet finished its business, so it's premature to express any opinion on its work. The leaks reported in Murray Waas' article suggest strongly that there was an administration-orchestrated campaign to discredit my report by compromising the identity of my wife.
Irrespective of whether ultimately a crime is found to have been committed, this is an incredibly sleazy assault on the rights of a citizen to petition his government to redress grievances as protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
How could the president keep people of such low ethical standards in positions of responsibility? It's an outrage. Don't forget that the smear campaign began after the administration acknowledged to the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." The smears continued for well over a year and included in its most virulent forms, including the calling of Valerie and me liars and traitors.
If justice is not done - if administration officials get away with this - it's hard to see why somebody would stand up in the future. The costs are enormous and much, much larger when the government can assault a citizen with impunity like they assaulted Valerie and me. It would be a sad day for democracy.
There are people in the administration who are right now sitting back and watching while their actions may lead to the jailing of two journalists. That they not step forward is an indication of their cowardice. But we have known for a long time that, like a lot of schoolyard bullies, they are cowards at heart. And in this case, traitors to their country.
Four congressional committees previously declined to investigate the leak, based on the fact that the federal grand jury had not finished its inquiry. Do you anticipate another round of calls for congressional investigation when the grand jury report is finalized and officially released? If so, do you expect these calls to meet with success?
So long as Republicans hold the chairmanships of the committees, there will be no congressional investigation, pure and simple. Even the Republicans in Congress are intimidated by the administration. And in refusing to investigate, they abrogate their constitutional responsibilities to provide oversight.
In your view, was the leak coordinated?
I believe there was an orchestrated conspiracy at the senior levels of the administration to first do the "work up" on me - essentially run an intelligence operation against me from the White House - and then to leak Valerie's name. I think the special prosecutor and the grand jury may well expose an operation far broader than we yet know.
As to names, it's clear that Rove pushed the story from the minute it appeared in print. That in and of itself is reprehensible, if not illegal. He may not have to wear handcuffs, but he should still be frog marched off the White House grounds. That sort of unethical behavior should not be tolerated.
Earlier you said you believe the leak was intended to discourage others from coming forward. Did the plan work?
Clearly. There are people close to my wife who could have spoken up at the beginning of the smear campaign to clarify that Valerie had nothing to do with the decision to send me to Niger. They declined because they feared that they would be subjected to the same attacks. And as I report in the paperback version of my book - on the stands in a couple of weeks - the CIA itself would not let Valerie defend her honor in an op-ed that the New York Times wanted to publish.
How many leakers do you think there were? And were they from the CIA or the White House?
I have read in the Post that two leakers called six reporters. But the leakers were probably not the decision-makers. They just carried out the decisions of their superiors.
The intriguing question is: Who gave the name to the White House in the first place? Who in the intelligence community offered up my wife's name and why?
This was not an agency leak. There might have been an individual within the agency who leaked, but not the CIA as an institution. They asked me to do a job, I did it, they were satisfied.
Let's go back to circumstances of your trip to Niger and how you were asked to undertake it in the first place. Can you talk a bit about that?
I did not approach the government or volunteer to undertake the mission. My wife did not suggest or recommend me for the trip. The CIA has been saying the same thing since it was first reported in Newsday several days after the Novak article appeared.
I was reimbursed for my expenses but not paid a salary or any compensation for my time. I was asked to do it because I had a unique set of relevant relationships in Niger and had undertaken a mission to that country on behalf of the CIA a couple of years previously.
There was nothing personal to be gained for either my wife or myself in making the trip.
The request for you to undertake the inquiry -- where did it originate? The CIA or the White House?
The Vice President has belatedly admitted that he inquired into the report. That is what generated the trip.
You were asked to go to Niger based on an intelligence report about documents the Bush administration claimed proved Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase yellowcake. These documents are now known to be forgeries. If you had seen the original documents before your trip, do you think you would have been able to identify them as forgeries, based on your knowledge of the African mining industry and the key players involved?
I've said repeatedly from the very first article that I never saw the documents prior to Andrea Mitchell handing me photocopies in an interview. Even then, I did not have my glasses on and could not make out what they said (one of the drawbacks of getting old). I still have not seen them to read them.
The fact is that three of us - our ambassador in the field, a four-star Marine Corps general and me - were all asked to look into the possibility that such a transaction could have taken place or been contemplated by the Niger government (which incidentally had sent troops to fight with us in the first Gulf War).
All of us reported back that it did not and could not have happened.
What do you see as the consequences on an international level of the leak? How will this affect future intelligence gathering?
Those who have spoken out on the international ramifications have noted how long it takes to develop networks and sources, and how trust or confidentiality is critical to cooperation.
I have no idea how this affects future operations, but it's safe to say it was a significant betrayal of trust between the clandestine service and its own government.
When you published "What I Didn't Find in Africa," did you expect the level of retribution that you experienced?
I fully anticipated that they would attack me and was prepared for that. After all, I had handwritten notes and signed photos from the first President Bush commending my courage and leadership when I was in charge of the embassy in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. I also had a slew of awards from the State Department and the Distinguished Defense Service Award for my time as political advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe. (Incidentally, the NATO commander who gave me that award had earlier in his career been an aide to Al Haig when Haig had been in the Nixon White House. No wussy Democrat, that officer!)
I, of course, had no idea that the administration would be so stupid as to compromise the identity of a national security asset working on protecting us from weapons of mass destruction. I also had no idea that they would tell such bald-faced lies and get away with it in the press.
When you look at the political landscape today, do you see specific instances in which the tactics used to discredit you have been used on others?
Sure. Start with the attacks on John McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 election. Look at what they did to Richard Clarke, with Bill Frist accusing him of perjury on the floor of the Senate. Swift Boat Veterans savaged John Kerry with their lies.
It has become, regrettably, a common tactic of the right. One need look no further than Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Ann Coulter. Heck, James Dobson even tried to smear Spongebob.
Your wife's career was ruined. Your reputation was smeared. Have you considered filing a civil suit?
We are looking at all options.
If the leak had never happened, how would your life - and that of your wife and family - be different today?
We would have receded into the background. My point had been made the day the White House acknowledged that the sixteen words should never have been in the State of the Union address. The press failed the country in allowing the lies and the cover-up to continue even as the right wing defamed Valerie and me.
What can we as ordinary American citizens do to help restore honesty and integrity to the government?
Everyone needs to take the time to be responsible citizens, to inform themselves on the issues and to be willing to take a stand. Letters to Congress, to the editors of local newspapers, are a start. Participation in groups amplifies the power of one. This is a precious democracy we have, but we will not have it long if we are not prepared to defend it.
Our politics should be as interesting to us as the NBA playoffs. It's the ultimate reality show and we need to pay attention at every level of governance.
Now that you're a writer yourself, with occasional op-eds and your biography, Politics of Truth, do you have a different view of the use of the shield law?
Actually, it's as a citizen watching the most belligerent and secretive government in my lifetime that I worry about the erosion of the press's ability to do its job.
Are you thinking about writing more in the future?
I've been thinking about a novel that encapsulates the atmosphere in Washington at this time in our history. The nice thing about fiction is that the malefactors can get what they deserve. See Dante's Inferno
Would you ever consider a return to public service or running for office?
If there were something that the President felt he (or she) wanted me to do, I would find it impossible to refuse. But this was never a job interview. My actions in calling my government to account for what it had done in the name of the American people is what we do in a democracy. The response of this administration is typical of what is done in a dictatorship.
As for running for office, I have small children and have no desire to be a part-time father. I will, however, remain an active citizen.
One final question: Do you agree with Jon Stewart that Robert Novak is indeed a douchebag of liberty?
Valerie doesn't like the term, "douchebag." I think that Novak was a pawn in someone else's game.
That said, it's not likely he'll be a guest in our home in this lifetime.
http://tinyurl.com/b6l3j
By Michael Isikoff and Eve Conant
Newsweek
Aug. 9 issue - Secretary of State Colin Powell recently testified before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame, NEWSWEEK has learned. Powell's appearance on July 16 is the latest sign the probe being conducted by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is highly active and broader than has been publicly known. Sources close to the case say prosecutors were interested in discussions Powell had while with President George W. Bush on a trip to Africa in July 2003, just before Plame's identity was leaked to columnist Robert Novak. A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger—a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status. At the time, White House officials were seeking to discredit Wilson, who had become a public critic of the Bush administration. There's no indication Powell is a subject of the probe; the department official said the secretary never talked to Novak about the Plame matter. Still, sources say the decision to question Powell shows the thoroughness with which Fitzgerald is conducting the probe—and that knowledge about Plame was circulated at the highest levels of the administration. Though most lawyers thought the investigation was nearly complete, sources say Fitzgerald has recently recalled witnesses before the grand jury—apparently to ask about issues raised by a new Senate intelligence committee report that seemed to contradict some of Wilson's public statements about Plame's role in his trip to Niger.
Sat Jul 2nd
NEW YORK Adding to the growing intrigue in the Plame case, the grand jury investigating the leak of the covert CIA operative’s name subpoenaed has a wide range of White House documents, including records of telephone calls from Air Force One and information relating to an internal working group dealing with Iraq, government sources confirmed to CNN on Friday.
“We are complying fully with the request from the Department of Justice,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday.
Government sources told CNN the federal grand jury was seeking any information about contacts between White House officials and more than two dozen reporters. The grand jury also asked for a transcript of a briefing by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
The subpoenaed information regarding telephone calls to and from Air Force One, sources said, covered July 7-12, while the president was on a trip to Africa. The requested transcript was from a briefing during that trip as well.
...
Many of the documents subpoenaed Friday relate to the White House Iraq Group, a little-known task force. Newsweek reported that the group was created in August 2002.
The Newsweek report cites an earlier Washington Post article that lists senior political adviser Karl Rove, Bush advisers Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney among the group’s members.
According to Wilson, the CIA paid his expenses to send him to Niger, although his ‘time was offered pro bono,’ to verify Africa's alleged trade to ‘Iraq’s non-conventional weapons program.’ After eight days in Niger, he concluded the answer was no. Saddam Hussein had not tried to obtain yellowcake uranium. As he wrote, ‘in short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.’ Then Wilson claimed members of the Bush Administration retaliated by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak as the person whose recommendation helped garner him the mission and subsequently launched an ongoing criminal investigation that led directly into the White House West Wing--who illegally leaked Wilson’s wife name?
A whirlwind of media appearances followed. Wilson appeared on the international stage making his case, including a photograph taken with his wife camouflaged in a scarf and sunglasses in Vanity Fair, followed by the May release of his book: The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity. President Bush called for a thorough investigation and both the President and Vice President Cheney have been questioned. The year-long criminal investigation is pending.
But things have changed, and in the world of politics perception and reality are not always as they appear. Not everyone and their views fit nicely in one box.
The bipartisan Senate Select Committee Intelligence Report challenged the veracity of Wilson’s claims finding instead that Plame had ‘offered up’ her husband’s name for the Niger trip. In an interview with CFP, Wilson remained definite, ‘she was not in the decision-making loop.’ Although the Bush Administration conceded that the 16 words involving Iraq’s attempts to obtain uranium delivered in the State of the Union Address should not have been included, the British uphold that their intelligence was not based on forged documents, as Wilson claims. Still Wilson maintains, ‘They [the British] are saying that they had separate intelligence, that they were comfortable with before the document came to light.’
Has this become an issue of semantics interwoven within the serious reality of war? He said? She said? They said? Political views assorted with facts? Wilson is confident, ‘we’re getting the facts out.’
Last Wednesday, during the Democratic National Convention, at a 'Take Back America Debate,' Joe Wilson with Dennis Kucinich, Gary Hart and Barbara Lee took their seats facing a room with a smattering of scattered empty seats, including three rows reserved for the press. The day before Howard Dean and Michael Moore appeared on the same second floor dais where it was standing room only, with a hopeful crowd in a line winding outside the Royal Sonesta Hotel. Their hopes were dashed when the scheduled room ultimately couldn't accommodate them all.
Minutes before the speeches and debate began, former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who resigned from the British House of Commons in objection to Prime Minister Tony Blair's role in the Iraq war was singled out and he rose within the audience to a standing ovation. Yells of ‘Bravo’ abounded.
When Wilson took the microphone minutes into his speech he declared, 'On my road to Boston I was ambushed, I was ambushed by the Republican National Committee… You’ve seen it in the Wall Street Journal… right wing blogs… I’ve been accused of betraying my country and of being a liar.'
It's no secret that Wilson, self-described as ‘Center Left,’ has taken an active role supporting John Kerry’s presidential bid. Wilson met Kerry once when he was ‘invited in March of 2003 to sit on the newly formed foreign policy advisory committee.’ These committees are formed in part to determine policies that one would pursue if ‘the candidate were to win the election.’ This Presidential election is unique, as foreign policy will play a major role. Yet Wilson ‘never anticipated’ that he ‘would have an overtly political role.'
Wilson says his ‘views’ are his ‘views’ and the ongoing criminal probe has ‘nothing to do’ with his position on the war. "It was never, ‘No Force, No How.’ It was always if you needed to use force, use force for the right reasons, but don't do anything stupid. But I always understood that the only way you were going to get Saddam’s attention was by the credible threat of force. Words in themselves were not going to do it.’ On July 31, 2003, The UK Telegraph reported one of Saddam Hussein’s son, Uday’s, last conversations, ‘This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.’ And Wilson concurred, "In fact it did [serve U.S. interests]. In fact when we got the UN Security Council Resolution and we began to mobilize, we got exactly what we needed. We got free access to the sites.’
Although Wilson does not see himself as a Whistleblower ‘in the classic sense’ because he ‘was not an employee of the U.S. government,’ why are some whistleblowers revered, while others are reviled, as evidenced during the Clinton years?
Wilson agreed, ‘it’s certainly I think a charge that has often been made. It’s not more acceptable in a Democratic Administration than it is in a Republican Administration.’ ‘It makes people fearful of their government and I don’t think it’s very healthy for the long-term survival of the greatest system of governance that the world has ever seen.’
Michael Isikoff and Eve Conant in Newsweek’s August 9th Issue report, ‘Colin Powell recently testified before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame…. sources say [Prosecutor] Fitzgerald has recently asked witnesses before the grand jury--apparently to ask about issues raised by a new Senate intelligence committee report that seemed to contradict some of Wilson’s public statements about Plame’s role in his trip to Niger.’
In a quote Wilson attributed to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, "You can take your humiliation now, or take your humiliation later." As the facts emerge, and the criminal probe continues, history will decide.
http://tinyurl.com/dzjqg
Tue Jun 22, 2004
Escaping the Plame ... for now
Another minor, but somewhat surprising development in the Washington Post for aficionados of the Valerie Plame Wilson grand jury investigation:
A Washington Post reporter was questioned yesterday by the special prosecutor investigating the possibly illegal leak of a CIA employee's identity by Bush administration officials.
State Department reporter Glenn Kessler submitted to a tape-recorded interview that will be provided to a grand jury investigating the disclosure last summer of CIA employee Valerie Plame's name to columnist Robert D. Novak.
Kessler said he agreed to be interviewed about two phone conversations he had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, at Libby's urging. At the prosecutor's request, Libby and other White House aides have signed waivers saying they agree to release reporters they have talked to from keeping confidential any disclosures about Plame.
Kessler said he told prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald that, during conversations last July 12 and July 18, Libby did not mention Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, or Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger to investigate whether Iraq tried to buy uranium there.
In October, The Post reported that "on July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."
When I first suggested calling on the Plame leak suspects to cancel their agreements of confidentiality with journalists, I had little hope that the FBI would take me up on the idea, much less that officials like Libby would comply, and reporters actually testify. But now they have, and hopefully it's moved the investigation forward in some way -- even if Kessler wasn't kind enough to place the smoking gun in Libby's hand.
Now, for everyone playing "Plamemania!" at home, you can ask the same questions that special prosecutor Fitzgerald is probably kicking around with his staff: If Libby didn't talk to Glenn Kessler on July 12 about Joe Wilson and his wife, who did leak the information to a Post reporter on that day? And who was the reporter?
Come to think of it, the WaPo originally admitted that the Plame prosecutors wanted to talk to Kessler and fellow reporter Walter Pincus. Did Pincus record an interview as well? Did he speak to Libby or any other Bushite official on July 12?
http://tinyurl.com/bttda