Posted on 02/25/2007 11:51:02 AM PST by RussP
2007-02-03 -- In a syndicated newspaper column by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, Valerie Plame (aka Valerie E. Wilson) was identified as a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction." Plame was married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who had worked briefly for the CIA and had written a scathing editorial a week earlier in the New York Times accusing the Bush administration of "twisting," "manipulating," and "exaggerating" intelligence about Iraqi weapons programs "to justify an invasion."
Bush's adversaries quickly concluded that he or someone close to him had illegally "outed" Plame in retribution for her husband's editorial, and thus a "scandal" was born. Many of them demanded that Karl Rove, the President's close advisor and an early suspect in the case, be fired immediately. Many more speculated and hoped that the "leak" would ultimately bring Bush down in classic Watergate style.
President Bush appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate the matter, and thus began one of the most ridiculous episodes in American history. The original conspiracy theory was absurd on its face and has been debunked, but the "mainstream" media has kept most of the American public ignorant of several absurdities that have permeated this case from start to finish. For at least six reasons, the Plame episode was and is a farce.
The "mainstream" media routinely refer to Plame as a former "covert" or "undercover" agent, but they almost always conveniently neglect to mention that she had not been one for several years prior to the so-called "leak." When the "leak" occurred, Plame was working openly at a desk job at CIA headquarters and had been for over five years.
Common sense suggests that once an agent works regularly at CIA headquarters, the agent is no longer useful for long-term, high-priority covert work. The law sets the threshold at five years, and Plame had exceeded that threshold for not working an extended undercover assignment. Hence, the law about "outing" a covert agent simply did not apply.
The law also requires that the leak be intentional, which is very difficult to prove under any circumstances. When the "outed" agent had been working openly at a desk job at CIA headquarters for several years prior to the "outing," malicious intent is almost impossible to prove. And when the agent is married to a high-visibility public figure, forget about it.
Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford wrote in the Washington Post:
As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.
For obvious reasons, nearly every person who works in any significant capacity for the CIA is required to sign a standard non-disclosure agreement (NDA). But for some reason Joe Wilson was apparently not required to sign one when he was hired to investigate the claim that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium "yellowcake" from Niger.
Wilson had originally claimed that his wife, Valerie Plame, had no influence in his selection for the job, for which he was essentially unqualified. However, a memo later surfaced from his wife recommending him for the job. But the larger issue is not that Wilson benefited from nepotism and lied about it. The larger issue is that he apparently got special unrestricted status in not being required to sign a standard NDA.
The CIA is part of the executive branch of government and, as such, is supposed to work for the President -- not against him. So why was Wilson allowed to independently "go public" with information he obtained while working for the CIA? It just doesn't make sense unless the CIA was very careless -- or Wilson was specifically hired to do a political hatchet job on the President. The latter possibility is the real scandal that should have been investigated, but it completely eluded the "mainstream" media, which seems to be capable of finding only Republican scandals.
The irony is that Wilson's New York Times piece accusing the President of lying to start the Iraq war turned out to be a lie itself, as Norman Podhoretz has abundantly documented. According to a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, Wilson's actual report on his brief eight-day trip to Niger did not support his sensational conclusion in the New York Times. From the official report:
The report on [Wilson's] trip to Niger ... did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.
As if this whole episode were not absurd enough, Wilson wrote a book called The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity.
As mentioned above, Plame had worked openly at a desk job at CIA headquarters for over five years prior to the so-called "leak." That in itself made her non-viable for serious long-term covert work.
But she became even less viable, if that was possible, when her husband Joe Wilson became a high-profile public figure by writing a provocative piece in the New York Times accusing the President of lying to start a war. The notion that she was still viable and useful as a covert agent after that episode is simply ridiculous. Even if the Novak column had never been written, the CIA would have to be incompetent to have ever used her in a covert role again.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that her employment status with the CIA could have somehow been kept secret even though she was driving openly to her job at CIA headquarters every day amidst the glaring publicity surrounding her husband and his controversial investigation for the CIA. Yet that is what you must believe if you believe that Plame's "outing" somehow "damaged" national security.
Ironically, many who believed such nonsense praised the New York Times when it published top-secret information from an anonymous CIA mole regarding the tracking of terrorist financial operations.
The CIA is part of the executive branch of government, and as such it answers to the President. The President can fire the CIA Director at any time for any or no reason. He cannot have a Civil Service government employee fired without cause, but he can easily have an agent's covert status terminated if he so desires.
The notion that the President of the United States or someone close to him had to "leak" the name of a covert CIA agent to the press to "blow" her covert status is ridiculous. Underlying the notion that the President lacks the legal authority to terminate a CIA agent's covert status is the ridiculous notion that the job of a covert agent is some kind of "union-protected" job. Yet that is what you must believe if you believe that Bush or someone close to him illegally "outed" Plame to "punish" her husband.
In many parts of the world, getting caught attempting to undermine a national leader that you are supposed to be working for will get you killed, of course. In this case, even if the President had illegally "outed" Plame, consider the significance of it. Not only did she not lose her life -- she didn't even lose her job! All she lost was her supposed "covert" status -- which she hadn't used for several years anyway!
Many of the same people who believe that Bush is leading the nation into fascism also think that "outing" Plame was a horrendous crime against humanity. To put this whole ridiculous episode into perspective, try to imagine Hitler getting retribution on a Nazi secret agent by leaking the agent's identity to the press to blow her covert status! Then, to compound the absurdity, try to imagine the matter being investigated for over two years!
The original "leaker," State Dept. official Richard Armitage, is in no legal jeopardy, nor should he be. Plame was not a covert agent at the time, and the so-called "leak" was a completely innocuous statement of fact made in passing. But the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, who was not involved in the original non-crime, is now being prosecuted for perjury by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
What is the point of prosecuting someone for perjury regarding a non-crime that was "committed" by someone else? Libby's testimony certainly did not mislead the prosecutor into believing erroneously that a crime had been committed, nor was it needed to determine that no crime had been committed.
Novak identified Armitage to Fitzgerald as the "leaker" very early in the investigation, and Armitage didn't deny it. But Armitage was told to "keep it to himself" while Fitzgerald continued an unnecessary investigation as a politically motivated perjury trap. Fitzgerald is now prosecuting a peripheral figure for failing to recall in detail conversations from months earlier. Like the original prosecutor in the infamous Duke rape case, the prosecutor in this case should be prosecuted himself.
Much has been made of the fact that Libby and others in the Bush administration were very focused on this matter initially, implying that they should have good recall of the details, but that is essentially more media distortion. What they were "focused" on was the inaccuracy of the Wilson editorial and how he got hired by the CIA. The supposed "covert" status of his wife did not even occur to them initially, nor should it have. Hence, fuzzy memories about when they first mentioned or heard her name are completely understandable.
As for the purists who believe that Libby deserves to be prosecuted, many of them are suspiciously selective in their outrage. Where were they when Bill Clinton perjured himself by claiming under oath he had never been alone in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky? Unlike Libby's misstatements, that was clearly an intentional lie, and it was also relevant to the case being tried. But Clinton was never prosecuted for perjury, of course.
The so-called "mainstream" media has been diligent in perpetuating public ignorance regarding the many absurdities of the Plame episode. And now that the original conspiracy theory has been debunked, that same media is now keeping the public ignorant about that fact too. Hence, a large percentage of the public is still under the impression that the Plame episode exposed "dirty tricks" used by the White House rather than against the White House.
For example, a recent ABC News story on the Libby trial rehashed the original conspiracy theory that the Bush administration had deliberately leaked Plame's identity to "get back at" her husband -- but they conveniently forgot to mention that the original theory is now discredited. In that story, ABC is clearly perpetuating public ignorance and using it to continue the smear campaign against the Bush administration.
In that same story, the reporter said that the Libby trial "will remind the American public just how dirty politics can get," underhandedly implying that the Bush administration was the perpetrator rather than the victim of such "dirty politics."
Aside from Fox News, the coverage of this entire episode by the major news sources has had the effect if not the intent of maintaining public ignorance and casting aspersion whenever possible on the Bush administration. At the same time, Joe Wilson's egregious lies have been ignored, and he has been held up as a paragon of truth.
The Plame Game: Was This a Crime? --lawyers who wrote law to protect agents say Plame charge doesn't meet standard
Who Is Lying About Iraq? --mandatory reading by Norman Podhoretz
Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame? --a must-read article by Clifford D. May
Our Man in Niger --another must-read article by Clifford D. May
Trial of the Absurd --don't miss this article by John Podhoretz
Analyst says Wilson 'outed' wife in 2002
Joe Wilson's Credibility Problem
Marked for later read.
Well, first it is recorded history that J. Wilson went twice to Niger as a spy for the CIA.
Second, it is on record that he owns a company under his name.
It is his own statement that he was going there on company business.
It is on record that his company was a broker for commodities sales from Niger. And Joe personally handled the big deals involving the President of Niger. That is why he was going to Niger in the first place, each time.
The only large export Niger has is yellowcake ore.
It is fact that Saddam's stock of yellowcake ore went up significantly each time Joe Wilson went to Niger to 'spy'.
Google the name of his company, The President of Niger, yellowcake ore. It's all there.
Ask yourself, or anyone else. Why was Joe going to Niger in the first place? Remember that his wife suggested him to the head of her department to be used as a spy because he had contacts there, some from his diplomatic ties, and he was going anyway.
Why? It wasn't to go fishing.
P.S.
Find out who Joe's first wife was, and who she worked for.
Then think back about the forged document that was supposed to fool this administration. It was supposed to prove that Niger did sell ore to Saddam, and get the President to use it as proof. Then embarrass him when it's veracity was overturned.
But, the Prez didn't bite.
Guess who was part of arranging that 'fake'???
Guess who was mad that the big fish didn't bite?
Guess who wanted to protect the info that the sales did go on, but not directly to Saddam. (The ore rebounded through Libya)
So, when you are guilty, what do you do??? You attack those who are not guilty. That way they are on the defense, instead of the offense.
DEMO TACTIC A#1
You mean his second wife, Jacqueline, a French "diplomat" (another word for "spy" in France)?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/joseph_wilson_iv_the_french_co.html
Because if there is evidence of this, I'd like to see it. I've seen it claimed a lot, but not backed up.
Thank you for the correction.
His second wife.
You are absolutely correct.
"Quick question, Russ - with regard to Plame's job (desk job for 'several years') and the assertion that she drove to Langley every day to her job, can you point to any evidence of this or are you merely relying on the unsourced assertions of commentators?"
OK, I'll be honest. I can't remember where I got that particular information. And I just tried a quick Google search, and I can't find much on it right now.
As far as I know, it is widely known that Plame had worked at CIA headquarters for some time. Perhaps I shouldn't have written that she drove there "every day," but I am pretty sure that she drove there "routinely." I'll correct my article to reflect that distinction.
According to Wikipedia, I believe it was Joe Wilson's own book that said Plame had not worked overseas since 1997, at least not on an extended basis.
And she had certainly not been "deep undercover" for at least that long if ever.
If you find more specific information, please keep me posted.
I agree that the Plame thing turned out to be a big disappointment for Bush haters, but remember that Leftist myths never die. They just go into perpetual syndicated reruns on ABC and MSNBC.
RussP, there are a lot of references on the Web about this (not just somebody saying it), but here's a short one from those who should know :
http://kerfuffles.blogsome.com/2005/10/25/langleys-war-plan/
Also, if she were a NOC, Fitz wouldn't go to the lengths he went to hide that, even from the judge, apparently, to justify his "investigation". He always referred to her as "classified", not "covert" which is specific to the statute, and we know that she had a desk job as "analyst" at CPD in CIA, she also married Joe Wilson in 1998 and had twins - hardly leading a life of jet-setter. There were also no other "covers" disclosed, other than "non-cover" at Brewster-Jennings, which I posted about in #37.
That's all very interesting. I'll look into it.
Since you know so much about this thing, do you know when Plame started working openly at CIA headquarters? I did a quick Google search, but I can't seem to find that particular information.
Here is an interesting quote from your link:
"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent,” saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency’s headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee."
Unfortunately, but I don't see any attribution or reference. Where did this come from?
The 'she was not covert' argument requires one to believe that the CIA made a criminal referral with no basis, that DOJ opened an investigation with no basis, appointed a special prosecutor to pursue a case with no basis, maintained a GJ investigation with no basis, etc. Could be, but Occam's Razor would argue against this line of thinking.
“She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat,” Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"The 'she was not covert' argument requires one to believe that the CIA made a criminal referral with no basis, that DOJ opened an investigation with no basis, appointed a special prosecutor to pursue a case with no basis, maintained a GJ investigation with no basis, etc. Could be, but Occam's Razor would argue against this line of thinking."
I would not be the least bit surprised that the CIA "made a criminal referral with no basis" -- for the same reason they let Joe Wilson do an "investigation" without signing a standard non-disclosure agreement. There is quite clearly a rogue element within the CIA that is hostile to Bush.
As for the DOJ, they just did what they were told by Bush. And Bush appointed the SP because he was afraid of being perceived as covering up a crime if he did not. Bush probably figured that he and his administration would ultimately be exonerated. He acted in good faith, but the SP did not. The SP took advantage of the situation to stab the Bush administration in the back.
Please cite to any post where I have treated any statement by Johnson, McGovern or Corn "as gospel" - or even as proof of her status. If you don't do it, you need to retract your lie.
If you can't argue without making crap up, then you can't argue.
Color me skeptical.
It would also be inconsistent with everything Fitzgerald has done in his reported career. I know a bunch of folks around here like to slag on him about this case, but his record prior to this case reveals nothing but a thorough, stand-up prosecutor. There is no reason prior to this case to think he is a Bush-hating case-manufacturing moonbat, but that is exactly the picture that most here paint of him.
You know, if you say that enough times, you might even begin to believe it yourself.
What do you think of Fitzgerald's request of the judge that the dismissed juror be replaced and the deliberations restarted, even though, according to NRO, it's exactly the opposite of what prosecutors usually request?
What I think of Fitzgerald asking for the alternate is exactly the same as what I think of Wells not asking for a mistrial - exactly the opposite of what defense lawyers usually request. It is odd, but impossible to judge not being there or observing any of the jurors, or the voir dire.
Well, you're not the only one with a Liberal know it all in the family. My brother leans left bigtime and I keep sending him this info. He sent me a hahaha Gore won an Oscar e-mail. I laugh and shrug it off. I just reply with the truth whenever he tries to argue but it falls on deaf ears unfortunately....I swear they hate W more than Osama....mind boggling really....
"So, you really think this could've played out this way if there was never any basis for a referral or an investigation?"
Yes, I do. Let me explain why (again). Bush probably appointed the SP because he figured:
1) If he doesn't do it, the conspiracies of cover up will grow out of control and dominate the news indefinitely.
2) If he does, an honest SP will quickly dismiss the whole thing.
Unfortunately, Bush assumed incorrectly that the SP would act in good faith. But, as I said earlier, the SP is really accountable to no one. So he had no compelling reason to act in good faith. And he didn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.