Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Novak reveals name of CIA undercover operative
Newsday ^ | July 21, 2003 | Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce

Posted on 07/22/2003 12:37:53 AM PDT by RDangerfield

The identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband started the Iraq uranium intelligence controversy has been publicly revealed by a conservative Washington columnist citing "two senior administration officials."

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

Wilson and a retired CIA official said Monday that the "senior administration officials" who named Plame had, if their description of her employment was accurate, violated the law and may have endangered her career and possibly the lives of her contacts in foreign countries.

A current intelligence official said that blowing the cover of an undercover officer could affect the officer's future assignments and put them and everyone they dealt with overseas in the past at risk.

"If what the two senior administration officials said is true," Wilson said carefully, "they will have compromised an entire career of networks, relationships and operations." What's more, it would mean that "this White House has taken an asset out of the" weapons of mass destruction fight, "not to mention putting at risk any contacts she might have had where the services are hostile."

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cia; intelligence; josephwilson; robertnovak; undercoveroperative; uranium; valerieplame; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: RDangerfield
Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity

OK, so Newsday is whipping up a frenzy over Novak, but how is this story any different than his? Since when do "intelligence officials" confirm undercover assets? Since when do established media organizations print such things?

The evidence is in: this is much ado about absolutely nothing.

21 posted on 07/22/2003 4:43:15 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Plus, she was an ambassadors wife, wouldn't that be kind of hard to do if she was an undercover agent?

No, actually it would provide an excellent cover.

22 posted on 07/22/2003 5:19:37 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
Well, I have no idea what the truth is, but the Newsday article says:

And we trust Newaday over Novack because ???

All I know for sure is, Wilson's story from beginning to end smells of DNC .. and that includes his wife

23 posted on 07/22/2003 7:15:32 AM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Look at this it seems Time ID'ed Wilson's wife 24 hours before the Novak article came out..

The Time article is dated July 16. Corn says that the Novak article appeared July 14 (although I haven't looked up the article myself). So, as far as I can tell, it still looks like Novak is the first published source.

Thanks for the link to the Time article though; I hadn't seen it.

24 posted on 07/22/2003 10:42:30 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Yes, I noticed Wilson's cagey phrasing on that. On the other hand, the horse isn't really out of the barn; it has not really been confirmed that his wife is with the CIA, and it's reasonable for someone in her position to at least want some doubts to linger. Moreover, since nothing has actually been confirmed regarding her work with the CIA, he might even subject himself to legal liability for stating that as fact.

Wilson is playing games.

I wouldn't doubt it. I think a lot of people are playing games.

25 posted on 07/22/2003 10:47:56 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
If she was an undercover CIA agent, then the horse is out of the barn, because anyone in a position to have to deal with her will find out that she is likely to be an intelligence agent.

And whoever is playing games, good guy or bad, should be brought to justice. If Novak did endanger US Intelligence Agents with his report, even if he was just passing on what he was told, he should be prosecuted, as should whoever told him things. And if she is not an undercover agent, or if her role was already public knowledge, then those trying to smear the administration and/or Novak should be brought to justice as well (although there may not be any crime committed so it would have to be in civil court with financial penalties).

26 posted on 07/22/2003 10:54:05 AM PDT by William McKinley (Go Postal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
And we trust Newaday over Novack because ???

Maybe I missed something, but how are Novak's article and the Newsday piece inconsistent with one another? Or with the Corn article, for that matter?

27 posted on 07/22/2003 10:57:34 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RDangerfield
There is another thread floating around FR from the website that monitors the falsehoods Paul Krugman's articles which indicates that this woman was not necessarily a "covert" agent. Another story blown out of proportion by the left.
28 posted on 07/22/2003 11:10:38 AM PDT by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
If she was an undercover CIA agent, then the horse is out of the barn, because anyone in a position to have to deal with her will find out that she is likely to be an intelligence agent.

Yes, but there's still that lingering doubt. She may not want to appear in every published article for rest of her life as "ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame". Moreover, at the moment, it's basically a rumor; couldn't Wilson be prosecuted if he confirmed the rumor as fact?

And whoever is playing games, good guy or bad, should be brought to justice. If Novak did endanger US Intelligence Agents with his report, even if he was just passing on what he was told, he should be prosecuted, as should whoever told him things.

I agree, subject to the proviso that I'm not familiar enough with the law to know if Novak violated it or not.

And if she is not an undercover agent, or if her role was already public knowledge, then those trying to smear the administration and/or Novak should be brought to justice as well (although there may not be any crime committed so it would have to be in civil court with financial penalties).

If she's not with the CIA, Plame could conceivably file a civil suit (claiming slander, or something like that -- I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the subtle details here). She'd be the one who was smeared in this scenario.

I don't expect we'll be seeing such a lawsuit.

29 posted on 07/22/2003 11:11:18 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
I should also qualify my opinions the way you did. I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
couldn't Wilson be prosecuted if he confirmed the rumor as fact?
I doubt it-- but even if technically he could, he in reality could not- the political fallout would be murder on any DA who would attempt to do so. It would be career suicide.
30 posted on 07/22/2003 11:18:26 AM PDT by William McKinley (Go Postal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I should also qualify my opinions the way you did.

I only said that because I know that claims like slander are complex, and I'm not sure exactly what one has to prove.

As for prosecuting Wilson if he confirmed the story, I don't think he could afford to be cavalier about the possibility, considering that he'd be the one taking the risk (and for no benefit). It might be feasible to prosecute him if he confirmed it and if it could then be shown that associates of hers had been compromised and had suffered severe consequences.

31 posted on 07/22/2003 11:28:39 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
I disagree with you on the 'and for no benefit' part. Clearly, he would benefit- otherwise he would not have been talking at all here. He has shown previously that he is more than willing to play partisan politics.
32 posted on 07/22/2003 11:32:11 AM PDT by William McKinley (Go Postal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
OK ..

Novak says she is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

Newsday says she works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity

Time says she is a CIA official who monitors weapons of mass destruction

Corn basically says she is a deep-cover CIA employee

And they all name anonymous sources

And here's my guess .. she had a cushy desk/office job working for the CIA .. but she was no undercover agent

Now, I admit, I could be wrong .. but I don't think so
33 posted on 07/22/2003 11:33:11 AM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I just don't see what extra, marginal benefit he would gain from adding his voice of confirmation to the stories already out there; certainly it wouldn't be enough benefit to justify even a small risk of prosecution. (And I still think his wife would want to preserve the lingering doubt about this, both for employment reasons and social reasons.)
34 posted on 07/22/2003 12:09:24 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
And here's my guess .. she had a cushy desk/office job working for the CIA .. but she was no undercover agent

Could be. I have no idea.

But the two things aren't inconsistent. Being an undercover agent just means that she was working for the CIA without letting it be known that she was doing so, not that she was doing a James Bond imitation. This could have been at a cushy desk job.

As for the sources, it seems to me that Corn is probably the best-connected one of the bunch. (That doesn't mean that what he says is correct, of course.)

35 posted on 07/22/2003 12:19:14 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Mitchell; MJY1288
Old news to FReepers. The dots were connected last week on the Dose. Way to go!
36 posted on 07/22/2003 12:32:31 PM PDT by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diver Dave
Yep, it was discussed ..
37 posted on 07/22/2003 3:07:24 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
But the two things aren't inconsistent. Being an undercover agent just means that she was working for the CIA without letting it be known that she was doing so, not that she was doing a James Bond imitation. This could have been at a cushy desk job.

IMO it was a cushy job .. if she was an undercover agent .. why send her husband .. why not go herself

38 posted on 07/22/2003 3:14:13 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: swheats
Actually I got my info from a NEWSWWK article and a Robert Novak piece that identified Wilson's wife, I might have been to post it here, but it wasn't me who figured out who she was.
39 posted on 07/22/2003 4:33:41 PM PDT by MJY1288 (The Enemies of America can Count on the Democrats for Aid and Comfort)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
My mistake. I really do have to hang out more to get all the facts.
40 posted on 07/22/2003 5:59:30 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson