Was She Covert?
Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse, but a reporter from a major news organization told me today that they are still arguing in his/her newsroom about whether Valerie Plame was covert. The journalist who told me this is a talented, smart person but is still confused about the terms "covert", "cover", and "non-official cover". So here's my gift to confused journalists.
Scooter Libby is not on trial for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He faces a jury because he lied about his role in giving out Valerie's name and obstructed the investigation into the leak. Can you leak the name of an overt employee? No because the person's relationship with the CIA is not protected.
The relevant section of the law relevant to the Libby investigation states:
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and 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, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So what is a "covert agent"? Here's what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act states:
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA. Zippo!
The remaining category of employee is covert. Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover". A former CIA officer, Tom Gilligan, discussed both types of cover in his book CIA Life: 10,000 Days With the Agency. Official cover means the employee can say that he or she works for the United States Government, e.g. State Department, but at no time do you admit publicly that you work for the CIA. You get the added benefit of carrying an official or diplomatic passport. If you get caught overseas engaged in intelligence activity it means you have diplomatic immunity and the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.
Non official cover or NOC also is covert but is more sensitive (and dangerous). A NOC does not work for the U.S. Government. A NOC does not have an official or diplomatic passport. A NOC works for a business or organization with no tie to the U.S. Government. If you are caught overseas while conducting espionage activities as a NOC you are screwed. You do not get a jail out of free card. You remain in jail or may be executed.
Now I will write this in big block letters: VALERIE PLAME WAS STILL UNDER NON OFFICIAL COVER WHEN NOVAK PUBLISHED HER NAME. Valerie and I started our career together and both of us were given official cover. But Valerie later took the additional and more dangerous risk of going under Non Official Cover. She became a NOC and, thanks to the Corn/Isikoff book Hubris, we now know she was helping hunt down Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Right wing hacks like Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and Byron York not only deny Valerie was covert but also insist that Valerie was not covered by the IIPA because she had not lived overseas in the five years preceding the July 2003 Robert Novak article. But that is not the law. The law states, "serving outside the United States". Although she was based in Washington, DC, Valerie traveled overseas and conducted espionage activities. She served outside the United States during the period 1998-2002 and was a covered person under the IIPA.
If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee who had been sitting quietly at a desk, never venturing overseas, the CIA would not have sent the Department of Justice a letter on 30 July 2003 stating:
the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
The CIA knew that Valerie was a covert agent. But they did not know if the Novak leak was an intentional disclosure. That was for the FBI to determine.
Here is the irony? If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee not covered by IIPA then Scooter Libby would not have had to lie to FBI agents because there would not have been an investigation. But Valerie was a covert agent. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage, among others, put her name in circulation with members of the press. They harmed a covert agent and in the process did serious damage to our nation's security. This may not be relevant to the charges Scooter faces, but it is relevant to our nation's security. We now know that the Bush White House was as cavalier with the identity of a CIA officer as they have been of late with the medical care for wounded Iraqi war vets at Walter Reed. And in both cases people have probably died because of their carelessness.
But I don't think it's a "dead horse", Larry, and here's why: You've made a good case for the law - it's clear and unambiguous. So folks like Toensing, May and York are engaged in political discourse disguised as legal discourse. Toensing is using her standing as a legal expert to convince us (the polis?) that it was OK to out Plame because no harm was done since she wasn't covert and a bunch of people knew she worked for the CIA. That's not a legal argument. I could argue against a speeding citation that it was OK for me to violate the speed limit, which was enacted for the interest of public safety, because I didn't cause any harm to the public. It wouldn't fly in a court of law, period.
But politically, those who wish to defend the Bush Administration only have obfuscation as a tool to cover the enormous breach of truth that we are witnessing. Valerie Plame was not covert is just one example of this. Another is Lots of people knew she worked for the CIA. Christ, it's like the entire US government is stuck the third grade. So I would say the horse is still alive - as long as so many people can't distinguish between law and politics.
Neoboho
February 21, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"..The CIA knew that Valerie was a covert agent. But they did not know if the Novak leak was an intentional disclosure. That was for the FBI to determine..."
So you are saying it was unclear whether the IIPA had been violated at that point.
"...Here is the irony? If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee not covered by IIPA then Scooter Libby would not have had to lie to FBI agents because there would not have been an investigation..."
So Libby knew that it was a violation of the IIPA, but the CIA didn't know. His alleged lying is proof that he committed a crime, which Fitz didn't think he committed.
"...Scooter Libby is not on trial for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act...."
But Libby apparently did not violate the IIPA, or he would have been charged.
"...Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse..."
Maybe if you say it with feeling this time.
This horse has been dead and buried for years, get over it.
February 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
While it is good that you're killing this dead, you still haven't addressed the really salient point:
When you were in the agency training with Ms. Plame, was she as much a stone fox as she now appears to be?
February 21, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was seven years her senior and happily married. I decided to avoid that problem. However, she is a dangerous combination--beautiful and smart.
February 21, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ, hopefully you are not as obtuse as you post suggests. In a legal proceeding like this the CIA believed the law had been violated but they are not a law enforcement agency. Therefore they had to refer the matter to be investigated. That is what the FBI was doing. If Scooter had not done anything wrong he would not have lied to the FBI. But he lied and he obstructed justice. Have you let those woodpeckers perch on your wooden head too long? Too many holes?
February 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The case against Libby was prosecuted as one somewhat on the level of fibbing about junior high school girls' backstabbing gossip. Any mention or implication of danger to national security was not allowed. That's how the case was prosecuted. Even on that level there were disclosures indicating the cavalier disregard the Bush group had for our nation's fundamental security. I include Bush in the "group" though again, because of the very limited nature of the prosecution Bush and his direct flunkies were not dealt with.
With this in mind - the dodging of any mention of "covert" status or the malfeasance directed towards the CIA - it isn't surprising that people might be wondering what the big deal was about. It's even less surprising that political operatives would be working that approach. It's in the nature of how this case has been prosecuted.
Considering that Cheney was put out as a possible witness and on that basis jurors were selected with regard to their attitude towards Cheney, my sense is that the jury was by definition biased towards the defense. Heavily biased. Cheney is even more reviled than Bush and has been for much longer. Who doesn't have a negative opinion of Cheney? The truly clueless and the Cheney groupies. Nice jury pool.
When I read about Novak stating that he had found Ms. Plame's maiden name in "Who's Who," which had been an excuse Novak used in the past (though without any firm claim of its being the actual source) I couldn't help but be reminded of the inconsistency of the claimed smear tactic directed at Wilson. Supposedly Joe Wilson got the Niger gig through his wife. It was something that only an effeminate man would allow. That was the line put out. Nepotism for a wuss. But if that were the case, and Joe Wilson was the sole target, than using "Mrs. Wilson" would have made much more sense. "Mrs. Wilson" got some work for her out of work husband. But it was the "Plame" name that was specifically used. That wasn't solely to get Wilson or even the Wilson family. That was the give the CIA a message that any that dared counter the Bush line of propaganda, no matter how damaging that line might be to the nation, would be subject to the most extreme responses, including responses that endangered lives and the nation.
Those implications were never allowed in this trial. And now we're left hoping that a Cheney favoring jury might convict on a middle school fib and that conviction will be effected before appeal and pardon. Should that hope arise, we the face the fact that we're in an era of Antonin Scalia rather than John Sirica.
February 21, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice concise post.
When you reduce the wingnut arguments to their bare essence, they amount to an assertion the CIA didn't know Plame was covert.
That's how dumb the GOP thinks we are.
February 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I just wanted to thank you for your service then, and now. I also wanted to pass on something I did a few years ago which made me feel much better at the time, and again today after reading Mr. Fitzgerald's closing statements.
(cross-posted on Kos)
[snip]
I called the CIA a couple years ago about this issue with the Libby case.
My uncle had some type of "affiliation" with them according to family rumors, so I have been following this case closely.
I looked up the number for the Office of Public Affairs and called them and talked to a very nice lady and told her how I felt it was a damn shame that they appeared to be letting themselves be hung up to dry by Cheney, et al., and that I felt that they all deserved a lot better than the scum we had for leadership in this country. She was quiet for a couple minutes, and then said, "just wait, and don't worry about us." So I am very hopeful that they are going to take the VP down and down hard.
[snip]
February 21, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Yes, sadly, ljohnson, TJKING IS, indeed, as obtuse as his comment indicates...'tis the only conclusion one can come to when you consider his above with ALL the other clap-trap I've seen him offer.
Sorry for this 'ad hominem' moment...I just couldn't help myself.
February 21, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she was covert. That's why the CIA pursued the matter in the first place. Duh!
Tom
February 21, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to wonder if you really do believe this stuff. So you obviously know what goes on inside the CIA, huh? Who at the CIA started the ball rolling and contacted Justice to investigate? Any names? If CIA is not capable of carrying out law enforcement operations, someone obviously made a decision that an investigation was warranted based on a law being broken. But you claim, according to your quote, they did not know if a crime had been committed. As it turns out no one has been charged yet, have they? Why?
It is more likely that the partisan hacks at the CIA knew that the law had not been broken, but launched the missile over to FBI passing through the window at State to initiate the Fishing trip. Again the fact that you have admitted no crime was committed referring to the IIPA, but as you say some moral law was broken, you prove that this has worked as planned. Still no IIPA indictment.
I am thankful you are not in law enforcement because this circular logic about,... Libby must be lying because he had to hide his involvement in a crime, and we know there was a crime because why else would he be lying, never mind that no one was charged with the crime and he has not been proven to have lied yet. Talk about peckerwood holes.
I think you know that a person that goes to a conference overseas that is not serving in an official capacity and the term, "serving overseas" requires that she be posted. Where was she posted overseas in that 5 year period and what official covert espionage did she do? Oh how convenient...you can't tell us. Its not neccesary, you know there are mechanisms in place in the CIA that can verify this without divulging "classified" information, because if she had, there would be indictments, but there aren't. And speaking of classified status and non-classified status, What if she hadn't been overseas for 5 years and a day, does that mean as Rove is alleged to have said, she is fair game? That is what you are implying. But isn't there the fact that she could be not covert, but classified. If you are going to tell the story Larry, tell the whole story. Isn't it also true that the agent must attempt to conceal their identity. Talking with Pincus and the gang over breakfast, at parties and at conferences about how she and her husband are going to take down the President so he can publish it to the world, oh thats cloak and dagger secrecy isn't it?
Isn't also true her cover had been blown twice before in the 90s. Isn't it also true that she was reckless with her use of the Brewster company name against company policy?
Andrea Mitchell and Judy Miller knew about Plame long before this. Miller had a security clearance and practically lived at CIA in WINPAC in 2001. Mitchell called Wilson at home the day before his OPED, nice timing, pretty chummy. How many times have others claimed she received the leak from Armitage and even she admitted it. If Wilson admitted to Mitchell the whole blabbering mess, then Wilson is guilty of outting a covert agent in your world. Here comes the FrogMarch.
You can't win this Larry, because a not guilty verdict means he walks and you are uncovered as the company girl for the left, even better if its guilty, on appeal the story lives on and the ability to hold it all together gets harder. Walton won't be around anymore to keep Mitchell off the stand, Armitage will spill the beans, Russert will fold, Miller already folded, it will only get better. I'm dreaming of seeing the serial liar Wilson under oath, oh I should be so lucky to live to see the day. You and NBC and Foley and the other hacks just want this to go away.
Your articles are so bad that the lies start before you even get done with the headline. Remember the Cheney got briefed on Wilson headline, ..aahh, good memories. One last time, if she was covert, then why not one single indictment on anybody?
Because it was CIAs Grenade to start the witch hunt. They knew it was a lie. You do too.
Stop drinking your own bath water, LJ. Heads you lose, tails Libby wins.
Larry must have committed a crime because he is lying and he must be lying because a crime has been committed. The crime is secret and the lying hasn't been proven, but if you say you are not a witch then you must be a witch and that means you are made out of wood, and wood floats.
February 21, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJK raises good points sometimes, but this is not one.
The "knowingly" provision, while seemingly reasonable, makes the law very problematic for trial. But regardless whether the act of exposing Plame was criminal, it sure was stupid. And regardless whether Libby or anybody else in the WH knew she was covert, they should have. And regardless whether they broke a law, security clearances should be revoked. A clearance implies you know how to handle classifed info--they did not.
While I might be clueless and not think about whether a CIA emplyee was covert, for WH staff to act that way is indefensible. If they had any class they would have resigned immediately in 2003.
Watch the emphasis shift to whether Wilson lied. But he is not the one that blew cover. Also expect further defense of the 16 words, etc. Once again, it's irrelevant--the WH staff blew cover, not Wilson, not the reporters. The people with responsibility (love that conservative point) did not exercise it or accept it.
On this I find no common ground with TJK.
February 21, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJK, I AM TYPING IN CAPS IN HOPES THAT YOU WILL READ REAL SLOW. THIS IS NOT SHOUTING. THIS IS GARRETT MORRIS NEWS FOR THE MENTALLY DEAF. I KNOW THAT SOMEONE WITH YOUR LIMITED INTELLECTUAL REACH IS EASILY OVERWHELMED. READ REAL SLOW. SINCE YOU ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH THE CIA, YOU KNOW NOTHING OF HOLDING A CLEARANCE OR TAKING A POLYGRAPH OR WORKING IN AN INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION. I THINK LIBBY AND CHENEY COMMITTED A CRIME UNDER IIPA. GOT IT. I THINK THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME.
When Valerie’s name appeared in Novak's column the directorate of operations began taking actions to counter some of the damage. Linking her name to the CIA exposed other human intelligence assets. In addition, the office of the general counsel at CIA examined the facts and determined that a covert person, as spelled out in the IIPA, had been exposed. But the CIA does not have legal standing to bring a case to a grand jury. The CIA does not have the power to subpoena witnesses. The CIA does not have arrest authority. That's why they passed their information to the FBI to find out who leaked the name of a covert CIA officer.
Now, why is Scooter Libby in court? He was charged by a Grand Jury for perjury and obstruction of justice. Regardless of the jury verdict it does not alter one basic fact--Valerie was a covert officer and the printing of her name by Robert Novak has hurt our nation's security. And I know some of the details of the damage but those details should not ever be divulged in public. I would hope that Senator Rockefeller get a full briefing soon.
February 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The arguement of "covert", "overt", "cover", or whatever, is immaterial. It was not Wilson/Plame who created this investigation nor was it initiated at their request. It was a decision of the CIA to the Justice Department.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 21, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems most people don't stop to think about it. The CIA ask for the investigation by the DOJ because under advice from their CIA counsel that laws protecting CIA agents was violated.
If the CIA did not feel that laws were broken it would not have asked for the investigation into the leaking of Plames identity. It is not about her name. It is about outing her relationship with the CIA which had been classified.
Bush and Cheney want to out her in March and planned the operation against Wilson then. It was just convent that Wilson wrote an Op-ed. That gave them their chance to expose Plame and shot down the CIA operations that she works.
The crap in June that Scooper and Shoot engaged in was a sudden fit of craziness. It was their opportunity set their operation in motion.
Nothing in the Bush administration is unscripted. All appearance and public events are staged and choreographed even to last detail of Bush’s long exhales. Cheney and Scooper knew they were outing an agent and the CIA operations connect to her. They were and continue to sure that Bush’s Executive Orders will provide cover.
As Bush has said he would fire anyone in his administration who leaks CLASSIFIED information. If what Cheney and Scooper leaked was declared “De-classified” as Bush said he did then Bush is has commented Treason.
It is that simple. Bush, Cheney, and Bush’s entire administration has commented Treason against the Unites States of America. If there was no crime committed then the CIA would not ask for the investigation.
Bush's defense is that LBJ declassified the SR-71 when I talked about it in a public speech.
That is entirely different from using the Executive Branch powers as a weapon against a critic and outing the CIA agent and CIA operations.
There is no defense of what Bush did. There is no get of jail free card. This is not a game.
U.S. Constitution
Demand the Truth for America
February 21, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point? This was a turf war between no less than 5 government entities, two political campaigns and also involving several non govt. entities. The Wilson's were in the latter group.
February 21, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can base that on fact or even a half decent argument, step up.
February 21, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you here:
"The "knowingly" provision, while seemingly reasonable, makes the law very problematic for trial."
There is nothing reasonable about it, seemingly or otherwise. People who work in the White House and get top secret clearance have the burden of knowing that what ever they say, leak, blab, or spill to 9 reporters, or anyone else, is NOT classified information!
Giving them the excuse that they didn't know is as absurd as saying that Libby, who was trusted with all kinds of duties and information was such a dolt that he couldn't remember whether HE called a pile of people to give out Plame's name (when his boss was on the warpath against her husband) or whether that pile of people called HIM.
Which of our country's secrets are safe if those who have been vetted so that they are trusted with them don't have the obligation to make themselves aware of which is secret and which isn't?
There is nothing reasonable about giving people awesome power but then not holding them responsible when they abuse it.
Why should people who are so busy running the country be "leaking" to the press anyway?
In the words of the great orator, George Bush: "It is time for a regime change."
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
When quoting the Constitution, also consider the Article III, Section 3 definition of treason, which is deliberately hard to prove.
Much as I dislike what the Administration has done, I have to presume them innocent until proven guilty. LBJ had already decided to declassify what we generally call the SR-71; he garbled the main designation up to that time, which was RS-71 (with due nods to YF-12A, A-11, OXCART, etc.).
More significant was the conscious declassification of imagery and voice intercept sensor data to support various UN presentation data. RF-101 shots of Cuba and RIVET JOINT voice intercepts were not as touchy as satellite imagery of Soviet territory, for reasons that had as much to do with Soviet sensitivity and domestic policy as protection of the systems. It is not an accident that arms control agreements use the euphemism "national means of technical verification."
I don't have a problem with Congressional hearings or a special prosecutor, but (1) I don't think you can get a conviction for treason and (2) there's room to challenge Presidential authority--and defend it.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it not John "let the eagle soar" Ashcroft who, realizing that there was no way to deny the fact that a CIA covert agent had indeed been outed by SOMEONE, appointed Fitz?
What influence did the Wilsons have over him? Or is he just a closet liberal?
Answer: Ashcroft had no choice because of the facts. Unlike Cheney he decided not to shoot the law in the face.
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
You should know that no amount of factual material ever "settles" anything once the nuttier right-wing elements decide to latch onto it
February 21, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apples and oranges. Yes, the CIA is capable of carrying out law enforcement operations, but NOT within the Unitd States, that's why the FBI got the referral. Making a decision that a law was broken is a separate issue from carrying out law enforcement operations.
Your posts remind me of a tactic used by ex Senator Alfonse D'Amato during the Clinton years.....incessant questions.
Nothing permitted to be resolved.
February 21, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Ashcroft did what his critics demanded. He said he would fire anyone that broke th law and he promised to have the entire issue fully investigated. As tradition would have it and as his critics demanded, he offered for an independent investigation. Your implying that Ashcroft believed that Libby broke the law, because he followed the rules is laughable on its face. I must give you credit though, the Cheney shooter joke was pretty good.
February 21, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did say "seemingly reasonable". The law requires demonstrable knowledge of covert status, but in a trial that could depend on circumstantial evidence.
I agree with you on whether the responsibility to manage classified info was exercised properly. (It was not.)
February 21, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
Here's what I don't understand: I was a military intelligence analyst. One of the FIRST things we were taught was that no classified information was to be released to anyone unless two conditions were met:
1. They had the appropriate level of security clearance, AND
2. They had a "need-to-know" the information.
I'm only speculating here but it seems that the identities of coverts and NOCs would, at a minimum, be TS/SCI.
Why would anyone in the executive branch have a "need-to-know" names of coverts or NOCs?
Next: Upon rereading Novak's article one thing stuck out like a sore thumb: He specifically labelled Ms. Plame as a "covert operative on WMD" so, whoever told him had to know that information.
Are we really expected to believe that those in the White House didn't have any kind of a clue that a "covert operative working on WMD" would NOT be highly classified intelligence? Not only that, they KNEW Novak did not have a "need-to-know."
I look forward to your thoughts on these comments -- as they have puzzled me for a long time now. Needless to say, I think what the administration did was treasonous and traitorous.
February 21, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep the "very nice lady"'s name covert otherwise Deadeye Dick will be out to get her:) (Sort of :) and sort of serious)
Tom
February 21, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they had any class they would have refused to be on the staff of this White House.
Tom
February 21, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
A couple more questions regarding the "president" declassifying portions of the NIE. I've looked at lists of NIEs that have been declassified and it's only recently that NIEs from WW II were declassified. That indicates NIE declassification schedule is rather long.
Not only that, but I was also under the impression that only the agency that classifies a document can declassify it ahead of its declassification schedule.
How could the President then declassify portions of an NIE when CIA is the proponent agency?
Thank you for your thoughts on this question too.
February 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
... because he's THE DECIDER ("faster than a speeding bullet, etc."), our superhero.
)Tom
February 21, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
ljohnson's picture
By Larry Johnson | bio
July 12, 2005
"...The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.
The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I DON'T KNOW IF A MAN MADE LAW WAS BROKEN BUT AN ETHICAL AND MORAL CODE WAS BREACHED. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate..."
Meanwhile....
Larry Johnson
Wednesday Feb. 21, 2007
"...I THINK LIBBY AND CHENEY COMMITTED A CRIME UNDER IIPA. GOT IT. I THINK THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME..."
Somebody nudge the record player, I think he is stuck.
Apparently I know enough about Intelligence agencies, Polygraphs, and security clearances to know when someone is lying.
In July of 2005, you claimed Republicans were claiming that no crime was committed and your response was agnostic on that. So at the time you did not think a man made law was broken, nor were you willing to state that a law had not been broken. You claimed ignorance.
You play that role rather convincingly.
Now you emphatically repeat, but not screaming, over and over so that people that think words matter, slow readers, mentally deaf, and others that need help sifting through the shifting sands of Larry Johnson's words,...".. I THINK LIBBY AND CHENEY COMMITTED A CRIME UNDER IIPA. GOT IT..."
Somebody must have taken your advice the first time and dropped the non case. Either you can share with us what caused you to change your story, or just admit that as the story has unraveled even more, you are grasping at straws and hoping nobody can remember your rantings from day to day. Read your own stuff. Telling the truth is less demanding on your faulty memory. Let me know when they indict Libby for violating the IIPA. Maybe we can discuss the mountains of evidence you are going to produce to back up your assertion. As of now, you have zip, nada, bubkiss.
February 21, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I have found interesting and perplexing about this situation is how Joe Wilson was allowed to use classified information to write his op-ed. From the declassfied INR Memo, it appears that when he made his oral report to the CIA, the information was treated as classified, right?
Wasn't the CIA under some obligation to keep him from diseminating what they had classified? His wife was preent at the debrief, worked in that group, and must have known that his report was classified. Was she under some obligation to try to keep her husband from giving out publically information that was classified?
February 21, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not implying that the CIA should arrest anyone. I was implying that when the CIA sent the referal it was a political act by CIA, not a belief that a crime was committed. They were firing a shot across the bow, because state had kicked them in the nuts. Armitage fucked up. He was probably doing what these two agencies have been doing for years, back biting, finger pointing, and trying to make the other side look bad.
Armitage blew his mouth off, When Powell found out he covered it up from not only the embarrassment of other agencies, he left the White house swinging in the breeze. He never told the White House.
The questions I asked I think show how many holes are in his argument. If you think nothing is resolved, then there must be some reason an incident so thoroughly investigated has not brought with it an indictment on the IIPA. Fitz tossed it, there must be a reason. Rather than having me ask again, I will just posit the obvious. Regarding Libby and the IIPA, No crime was commited. I think that resolves it.
If you think Armitage breached it, then it is even more suspicious on Fitz why he would bypass an indictment on him, to nail someone in the white house that he admits did not breach the IIPA. Believe me, if this case is appealed we will see Armitage again, and he will sing like a bird and it will not look good for NBC news.
February 21, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It raises the question why Plame's boss would not require Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement which would be standard operating procedure. It appears from the beginning they wanted Wilson to be free to prance around and say what they could not.
It should also be noted that Plame sent her memo initiating the Niger trip before Cheney was briefed and before the so-called "behest" of the VP. Plame was already planning this trip before Cheney knew anything about Niger.
February 21, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President can declassify it if he wants, he is the President.
February 21, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
One 'half-decent' argument, TJKING is the FACT that the entire Bush White-House apparatus hastened to promise, "To leave no stone un-turned until the culprit...WHO COMMITTED THIS FELONY...was apprehended"...
Do you remember that Bush promised to fire anybody 'immediately' who was found to have been involved?
And you resort to a bizarre claim that no 'crime was committed'?
You, along with many of those jokers in the White House whom you now try to protect by minimizing the whole affair, are badly in need of some serious couch time with a good shrink, obviously.
Are the above facts 'half-decent' arguments enough for you, TJK?
February 21, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring up some facts and lets see what happens
February 21, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on your recent posts, I confess that my previous assessment of you as a troll may have been incorrect.
You believe the bullshit that you write. You are a complete nincompoop! You are a blind nutcase! You are in the 30% that has no idea of what reality is. Please! Crawl back into your blanket -- keep blogging if that will keep you satisfied so that you don't bother to vote next time. This country doesn't need goof-balls like you at the ballot-box.
Although I have absolutely NO HOPE for this, I would encourage you to read; to learn; to educate yourself. Never mind. Aint gonna happen
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, I know. I wasn't ranting against you; I was ranting against the concept you brought up. You were nice enough to say it was reasonable, but that word has bothered me fromt the get-go. I am a nurse, and if I spread info about patients in my practice, thinking that the people I talk to didn't know them, it would be unethical whether they did know them or not.
National Security is even more important than that. Why do I respect the privacy of my patients more than the current regime respects those who are under cover for our country?
My point is that the burden is on those who recieve confidential information to make sure they do not give that info to those who are not authorized to recieve it. Motive should not be the qualifyer if harm is done.
If I don't mean to run a stop-sign, but I kill someone when I do it, motive is irrelevent.
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
State and CIA weren't the ones with the major issues. It was OVP and everyone else. Regardless, CIA had every right to make the referral to the FBI. That's what they are supposed to do when an undercover agent's cover is blown.
Libby is on trial for lying to the FBI and the grand jury, which as Fitzgerald said at his press conference, is like throwing sand in the eyes of the umpire, making it difficult to determine fault.
The IIPA is very difficult to prosecute; there's no doubt about that. Fitzgerald may be concerned with the impact of potential unilateral Presidential and/or Vice-Presidential declassifications of classified information and their impact on his potential IIPA case against Libby or others.
February 21, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Fitzgerald? He believes Libby broke the law.
What Bush actually said was that he would fire anyone who was involved, yet Karl Rove and all the rest continue to work for him.
February 21, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
At that point Bush/Ashcroft were under absolutely NO political pressure. They had everything going their way. Ashcroft appointed a Special Prosecutor because he had no refuge. His hope was that the republican Fitz would fold, but if Ashcroft had personally blown it off he would have had no legal standing. Ashcroft knew that Libby broke the law. He probably thought he would get away with it, like all the other criminals in this regime have -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SO FAR!
Thanks for the compliment about my joke. I have quite a reputation for the art of reparte! Just kidding!
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could Cheney have decided that Libby had a need-to-know, even if for the seemingly improper purpose of attacking Wilson? Presumably Libby had the requisite security clearance. They later had the President declassify info to present to journalists. (See Murray Waas' recent National Journal article.) Maybe the Pres. or Cheney also decided to declassify Plame's ID?
February 21, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't mean that he should have.
February 21, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't do anything with his information until after Bush tried to use it as a justification for the war.
Let's see some links showing these dates.
February 21, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but why did he do it? This scumbag did it to ruin a CIA agent whose husband disagreed with his sick desire for war. The President, alas, (per dubya) is not a dick-tator.
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Libby is convicted of lying, what are you going to say then? Fitzgerald talked about Libby's motive to lie. What do you think about that?
February 21, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even READ HIS OP-ED? DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO TAKE THE TIME TO SEE WHAT HE WROTE? THEN HOW COULD YOU WRITE THIS DRIVEL?
What is the matter with you and TJ? Do you think we all sit around and check out the funny papers after we listen to Rush? Grow up!
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libby knew whether he outed her. The CIA simply knew that she had been outed. Fitzgerald thought Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury, so he prosecuted Libby.
February 21, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Armitage or NBC News have to do with anything anyway? They are not the ones on trial.
You can try to cast aspersions on Fitzgerald, but it just makes you look desperate.
February 21, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outing a covert agent -- that is, exposing them and their associates in foreign countries to be killed as spies = giving aid and comfort to our enemies, no?
Wasn't that the rationale of Bush I's law against it?
February 21, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, We have read the OPED inside out, have you read it? Are you even aware that Wilson was basing his argument on the forged documents, which he claimed to have seen and the Presidents original 16 words had nothing to do with the documents.
The OPED is a farce, Jan. If you want to go over it line for line, Campesino and I can explain each part of each paragraph which has now been discredited and which parts that Wilson has recanted and basically admitted he lied about. He lied before the OPED, in the OPED, and he lied after it.
If like some have argued here, that Wilson's means were questionable, but his heart was in the right place or the result was good for the left or it was wrong on a micro scale but proved some greater truth, then those arguments are at least attempting to reconcile the facts.
Anyone that claims Wilson did not lie, looks more and more foolish every month. The position is untenable. The sheer weight of proof is impossible to deny. He is a liar and the OP-ED is a farce.
February 21, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
I agree with you.
But even by that definition, which is the only one that matters, they still have committed Treason. No less than that committed by all the spies and traitors that spied for USSR. Bush's actions against the CIA are treasonable by the very definition in Article III, Section 3.
I love the SR-71. I once saw take off in 1968 or '69.
If we do not punish these crimes then the next like-Bush will be worse and we may loose our nation's democracy.
Demand the Truth for America
February 21, 2007 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there is little question this particular incident was not for good reason, Presidents have either declassified things, or made the decision to jeopardize classified information, certainly back to FDR -- and there really wasn't much of a formalized classification system before WWII.
For example, the decision to shoot down Japanese Admiral Yamamoto went all the way up to FDR, because his schedule was known through code-breaking, and, potentially, the US would compromise a major intelligence capability to kill him. It was decided to risk it, with a cover story (coastwatcher reports that worked). Some of the other considerations were that no major US operations were scheduled in the near term, and the loss of Yamamoto to the Japanese was expected to be that of losing a fleet.
While everyone involved on both sides was military and armed, this is one of those tough calls of whether it would be considered an inappropriate assassination, or a legitimate act of war by uniformed personnel on other uniformed personnel. I'm simply sorry that he didn't survive the war and quite probably clear his name at the war crimes trials, since he did everything possible to avoid starting the war. In my opinion, he was a very admirable admiral, who knew and liked the US, and never could tell his staff enough about Abraham Lincoln.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 21, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wilson's July 6 Op-Ed:
Wilson does not claim Cheney sent him. He does not claim to have seen any report. Again:
Who did something seriously reprehensible, the guy who reported facts or the folks that counterattacked and (with or without knowledge) damaged an officer's cover? I find nothing unsupported in the piece, and you are only trying to deflect attention from the wrongdoers.
February 21, 2007 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially after Bush leaves office, there may well be criminal charges that can stick. The Framers, however, did deliberately make treason extremely difficult to prove, as a result of the way the British had abused it.
There have been very few treason convictions in US history. Many of the people commonly thought charged with it were actually convicted of espionage (Hanssen, Walker), of conspiracy to kill US citizens (Lindh), etc. Offhand, I remember several WWII cases of propagandists for the enemy, such as Iva Toguri ("Tokyo Rose"). There was an Army pilot who flew his fighter to Nazi Germany and asked for asylum, then flew against the Allies. The modern criterion seems to be directly working under enemy command, perhaps in enemy uniform.
And yes, it's one hell of an aircraft. After it went out of Air Force service, NASA had one or two for flight research--Mary Shafer just retired as the chief engineer for the project.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 21, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I did. Have you read the Wilson op-ed the week of the SOTU when Wilson said he was convinced that Hussein had WMD?
February 21, 2007 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the verdict comes down perhaps TJK will go the way of SFCWallace did after the elections - just slither away never to be heard from again....good riddance
February 21, 2007 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Novak's article didn't use the word "covert". What he wrote was:
I think Novak later claimed that he had assumed she wasn't covert, but his use of the word "operative" tends to refute that.
February 21, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
El C. hails from the Scotch-Irish barrio of....Ar - Kansas. They sure don't read no New York Times, you gonna make something of it?
Don't put down Rush, El C or TJ. It's folks like them that make America what it is today. The only country in the world stupid enough to elect the likes of George Dubya Bush. HC - kudos on your job protecting our infrastructure and hopefully no war protesters in DC will impede your movements around town.
February 21, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know, Jan, I don't suffer fools gladly. That being said, there are an assortment of posters that can make very good sense on some things but have one or two hot buttons of irrationality (a phrase that sounds like it should be in a bodice-ripper).
After some head-butting, I've found TJ to be someone with whom I can agree to disagree, sometimes agree, but, when we disagree, there's nothing covert or back-stabbing about it.
Incidentally, reality is a crutch for those who cannot handle science fiction.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 21, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uprating
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 21, 2007 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uprating
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 21, 2007 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uprating
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 21, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uprating
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 21, 2007 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't the law prohibiting government employees from knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent only passed in the 1980s?
February 21, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJK, go to source materials, in this case, the indictment of Scooter, which clearly spells out that At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. [1] What classified means is spelled out like this: The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. [2] Also, see Fitzgerald's 10/28/05 press conference: Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. [3]
Nobody is arguing anymore that Libby didn't out Plame. He did. From the press conference again: At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story... was not true. It was false. He was...the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter and that he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly. [4]
The tricky part. What was unknown by the CIA and Fitzgerald (and the point Larry made) was did he INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY out her. The press conference again, where Fitz is explaining the reason for the leak investigation: Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? ... And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused or did he intend to do something else? [5] Then, ...knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified is not enough. You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, you know, in certain statutes with recklessness. [6] It is all about INTENTIONS.
To be perfectly clear about Plame's status. Fitz won't say whether she was covert or not. Her status, according to him, was classified. [7] Larry does claim she was covert. As Larry knows Plame, knows the other people involved and knows the CIA, his claim is very credible. However, since her status was classified, anything beyond that is irrelevant, anyway, which is why the judge would not answer that juror question during the trial. Get it?
Lastly, since Plame's employment with the CIA was classified, why didn't Fitz charge Scooter with leaking under IIPA?
The short answer is because he could not get the truth out of Scooter. But here is Fitz's longer, better answer: ...let's assume for the moment that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action if you don't know the truth. [8]
Once again, TJK, you are probably a smart guy. So why you want to spout wishful right-wing obfuscations instead of just getting your information from source material, is a mystery to me.
1. [Indictment p.3-f]
2. [Indictment p.2-d]
3. [press conf p.1]
4. [press conf p.4]
5. [press conf p.6]
6. [press conf p. 15]
7. [press conf p.18]
8. [press conf p.19]
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 21, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...What does Armitage or NBC News have to do with anything anyway? They are not the ones on trial.
You can try to cast aspersions on Fitzgerald, but it just makes you look desperate...."
By his own admission, Armitage was Woodwards/Novaks source. According to others, He told up to six reporters. Andrea Mitchell being one. Andrea Mitchell told Russert and David Gregory. Both Gregory and Mitchell have admitted they knew in advance but later denied it. Russert did tell Libby "everybody knows", but when the FBI got involved he realized he has to deny that statement to protect Mitchell, Armitage, Gregory and himself. Judith Miller went to Jail, Russert cut a surprisingly cozy sweetheart deal with Fitz. Fitz astonishingly did not pursue Armitage even though he had solved the leak case, but continued on a fishing expedition.
In order to discuss a motive for lying, one need consider Russerts motive and Libby's motive. Libby had opportunities to leak in a much more substantial way on several occasions, but he didn't. His memory has been as good if not better than most of the people he is up against. There is no major player here, that has not been contradicted by another.
If Mitchell testifies in the appeal, she will have to decide if Armitage is going to spill her story that she knew, then she has to decide if she will risk perjury to protect Russert. If she admits that she knew, then Russert is busted. Gregory will be pressured too, he has denied Fleischers story that he was told.
No, they are not on trial technically, but they have a lot more to lose than Libby. Fitz is running for Attorney General in a Dem. White House. I only cast aspersions on him, because some of the things he has done are as suspicious as the Democratic DA in the Duke case. Haven't you considered, why not indict Armitage? Maybe because he will sing and NBC is outted, and fitz's case disolves. Without Russert, there is no case. Russert has a much more obvious motive than anyone including Libby.
"... CIA had every right to make the referral to the FBI. That's what they are supposed to do when an undercover agent's cover is blown..."
You are assuming that CIA believed that the IIPA was broken. If they knew for a fact she was not covert and they sent it anyway, then it was a political move. The fact that the IIPA was not used against Armitage or anyone else, means either a crime was not committed or Fitz pocketed the indictment, to go after the white house for political reasons.
"...Libby is on trial for lying to the FBI and the grand jury, which as Fitzgerald said at his press conference, is like throwing sand in the eyes of the umpire, making it difficult to determine fault..."
Fitz is throwing a lot of sand around too. Why fight so hard to keep mitchell off. Why not indict Armitage? Why tell Armitage in the beginning to not divulge that he was the source unless Fitz wanted to keep the investigation going after he had already solved it. Why convince Judge walton to not allow Jurors to consider if a leak was actually made regarding Plame outting. It goes to motive. The Jurors have already submitted notes to the judge about the outting and Walton admonished them. How can they judge truthfullness without motive, then Fitz brings it up in summation to his benefit?
"...The IIPA is very difficult to prosecute; there's no doubt about that. Fitzgerald may be concerned with the impact of potential unilateral Presidential and/or Vice-Presidential declassifications of classified information and their impact on his potential IIPA case against Libby or others...."
You are the first person here to actually consider the curious reasons and motives why Fitz would not indict Libby on that. Good for you. Yes, it is difficult to prove. The Pentagon papers and other leakers also were difficult to go after. John Walker Lindh committed treason,...that is hard to prosecute. I don't know what to tell you. On the declassifications, You are assuming Bush will do what Larry is doing here, that is claiming to have proof of her covert status but its secret.
"...If Libby is convicted of lying, what are you going to say then? Fitzgerald talked about Libby's motive to lie. What do you think about that?.."
As I said, Russert has multiple reasons to lie and his motives are greater than Libby's were. This is a DC Jury, anything can happen. The left keeps talking about Jury Nullification, but that can go both ways. The Jury could ignore the evidence and convict him anyway. For myself, I would prefer a conviction, because Russert, Mitchell, Gregory, all of NBC want this over, so does Armitage. If it continues, they have to continue this story and the story will eventually unravel, and for what, so that another trial rolls around and Bush can pardon him. Its bad for NBC, Armitage, and the CIA. Believe me they all want it to go away. They will be relieved with a acquital.
February 21, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
1982.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 21, 2007 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Mr. Johnson for clarifying whether the IIPA applies. It helps cut though the smoke that Toensing, York, Mona Charen and the folks at Fox News have been putting out.
Further to the line explored by HelenRainier, as a retired (2001) Foreign Service officer, I have experience with covert operatives. At posts where I served, we went to extraordinary lengths to protect their cover (even if it wasn't convincing). Overseas and in Washington (contrary to TJKING), one would never mention to an uncleared person that someone was a CIA employee on the assumption that employee's status was unclassified; the assumption was always that every such person was under cover. At least that was the way it worked for us working gerbils. At the highest levels of government, however, Libby, Rove, Fleischer, and--truly mysterious to me--Armitage ignored these simple precautions. Under Executive Order 12958 all of them should lose their security clearances, at a minimum.
Fitzgerald's prosecution has been driven by his anger that some U.S. officials would expose other U.S. officials to danger for partisan ends. The IIPA has an unreachably high threshold of proof ("knowing that the information...identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal..."). But try this: impeach Cheney, Rove, and others still in the government (Dan Bartlett?) for outing a person with reckless disregard for whether they are covert. Arguably, reckless outing could be impeachable because it aids our enemies, it puts U.S. officials' lives in danger, and it neglects the duty to see "that the laws be faithfully executed."
Amos Anan's point about seating a Cheney-neutral jury is shrewd and, I fear, prophetic. Most of the jurors said, for example, that they never watched Tim Russert. The case may indeed be in the hands of the clueless.
February 21, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Rove and Fleisher actually confess their crime to the grand jury?
February 21, 2007 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Google any plame timeline, it shows Plame's memo as Feb 12, VP met on Feb 13.
Wilson told Pincus he was sent at the behest of the VP. He clearly implies that sequence in his OPED when he says the VP asked questions,..and that he was asked to give answers. He did not clarify in the oped what he would later call misquotes in the Pincus article. He also followed up the charade in interviews. He also claimed his wife had absolutely nothing to do with his mission.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/07/joe-wilsons-lies-grow-bigger/
February 22, 2007 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said "..Are you even aware that Wilson was basing his argument on the forged documents, which he claimed to have seen and the Presidents original 16 words had nothing to do with the documents..."
Wilson claimed only after his trip that he had seen the documents with Pincus. Pincus reported it more than once. Wilson did not correct him as Pincus reported it a again. Wilson would later claim he saw El Baradei on TV and thought he had a memory of seeing the documents and misspoke. He had planted the storyline of the President basing his 16 words on the forgeries and in the OP-ED claims the President is basing it on the forgeries.
The memorandum Wilson is refering to in his Oped was not the basis for the british intel and they stand by their story to this day.
From Wilson OP-ED:
"...Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them...."
This is just false. We know now that virtually everybody Wilson came into contact with in the Niger timeline corroborates that Wilson learned of and reported "Iraq sought Yallowcake". Bush stated such. Bush and Wilson are in agreement on this and Wilson is running around telling others he did not find such evidence, which is a lie and to repeat it to others is more lying. Wilson after planting the preface of lies through Pincus and Kristof, then leaving much of it hanging out there and then trying to claim that Bush was basing his 16 words on forgeries and that Wilson had "debunked" that.
You say which is worse the guy who reported facts....he lied. The group that counterattacked...
Here is what Kristof later said:
"... I gather from the indictment and other sources that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were upset in May and June 2003 by a column of mine from May 6, 2003, in which I linked Mr. Cheney to Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. If Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby thought that my column was unfair, or that Mr. Wilson was exaggerating his role, they had every right to ask for a correction or set the record straight.
But they never raised the issue with me — nor, when Mr. Wilson went public, DID THEY MAKE THEIR CASE PUBLICLY. Certainly the solution was not to leak classified information about Mr. Wilson's wife...."
Kristof is clearly stating that a lie left unchallenged is the truth. He is claiming that what he wrote must be true because Cheney did not challenge it publicly.
How can you debate someone who is an anonymous source and one that we know now was claiming Cheney sent him and that they had seen the forgeries? The administration was being lied about by lying secret sources that were hiding behind a cloak of classified reports that they could leak, but Cheney could not defend against.
They wanted to get the truth out, like Kristof said, for one reason, the lies would be assumed to be true. They were not.
This whole idea is a joke that Cheney decided,... why waste time trying to get the truth out here, wouldn't it be better to just get even with this Wilson guy by telling people his wife is covert. Thats really going to get even. It's lunacy.
February 22, 2007 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I am hoping for a guilty verdict. Because the appeal will be much more entertaining than this trial. NBC's testicles are in a lockbox and the longer this goes on the worse it gets for them. If you fear opposing viewpoints, change the channel. If you don't hear from me for a couple of days, don't worry I'm not going anywhere.
February 22, 2007 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone recently criticized you for your patience. I think they owe you one better than that. You are well sourced, logical, and you keep your cool. Many of your posts have sent me looking up acronyms for missiles, radar systems and interesting historical information. If we sometimes differ, I do learn from the experience.
I will be traveling in Latin America for a few days, so don't let these guys think I'm gone.
February 22, 2007 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
KST,
You are right, and I stand corrected on that. The point I was trying to make, which you alluded to, is that Novak's choice of words leads "you" to believe that the Administration KNEW Plame was covert.
Thank you for the correction. My fingers were typing faster than my brain was thinking.
February 22, 2007 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
KST,
You are right and I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make, which you picked up on, is that it was Novak's choice of words that is a clue that whoever in the Administration knew Ms. Plame was "covert" at a minimum.
Thanks for the correction.
February 22, 2007 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohio,
Typically, security protocol dictates that there is a true operational "need-to-know" for purposes of accomplishing a legitimate mission. In their minds, they may have assumed the inherent "right-to-know", but I don't think their justification qualifies as a legitimate, operational "need-to-know."
February 22, 2007 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ,
I disagree. The classification of and declassification schedule for classified information is determined by the agency that is the proponent agency of same document. The NIEs are a compilation of information from various sources under the direction of the CIA. Bush can declassify information that comes out from HIS office, but nothing that comes from other agencies without their permission -- at least that is how the protocol is set-up. In the case of Bush, since he has decided he has extra-legal powers, he likely did think he could do whatever he wanted. It is still my opinion that they acted treasonously and traitorously.
February 22, 2007 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fact; Plame was covert.
I'm now waiting to see what happens
February 22, 2007 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the case of Bush, since he has decided he has extra-legal powers, he likely did think he could do whatever he wanted.
Libby testified to the Grand Jury that it was David Addington's opinion (chief promoter of the unitary executive theory) that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. [p.23] From other comments in Libby's testimony, it would seem the CIA did not agree with Mr. Addington's opinion.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 22, 2007 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Novak said it was Armitage AND Rove that told him Plame was covert. Why didn't Fitz indict them? Fitz said Libby threw sand in his eyes, obstructing justice.
How do you manage to separate the two reasons you put forth for the referral, political but not criminal? Did the CIA expect the FBI to recognize this was just a political shot across the bow and ignore any criminality in the leak?
February 22, 2007 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Herbert,
Thanks for providing your understanding and knowledge of how these matters work.
This is also the way we were trained at USAICS -- that, if you don't know you either find out or you consider the information to be classified and err on the side of caution.
But the bottom line here is still: Novak had NO clearance and certainly did not have a "need-to-know."
It is impossible to buy the argument that these fools, who have all been in the "Beltway loop" for many years would not be familiar with such procedural issues. I don't buy that argument for one minute.
February 22, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I think the "knowingly" is important in this administration where you have a president declassifying information without telling anyone that he's doing it. W assumes for himself the right to tell classified information to a reporter, and if he tells it, it is de jure declassified. Furthermore, either he has extended this right to Cheney, or Cheney claims this right too, and W doesn't contradict him, I'm not sure which. In this environment, if I were Armitage I'd be unclear too about what was secret. But that is not an excuse, as Tom Wright pointed out.
It is unfortunately the perfect petri dish environment for scum to grow: the scum of conspiracy which is not prosecutable as such. It is clear that Fitz wanted to indict Rove too, but realized he couldn't because Rove and Novak had agreed on a common story. It really tied Fitz's hands.
What follows from this is that it is incumbent on all of us to reiterate the points that Tom made: whether or not a law was broken, whether or not they knew that Valerie Plame was covert, the leak was stupid and dangerous, and anyone involved should lose their security clearance.
February 22, 2007 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is some confusion amongst the poster about who can declassify a classified document.
Classification authority is derivative. It derives, ultimately, from the President of the United States. This is written doctrine.
Normally, an agency uses its derived authority to classify something and that agency is the normal “declassification authority” for this document. However, since the agency’s authority to classify and declassify derives from the President, the president can declassify a document or fact without regard to the original classifying agency.
NOW, HERE IS THE HOOKER. Last year the Office of the Vice President redrafted the longstanding rules governing the authority to classify/declassify. President Bush signed the OVP’s draft.
The new draft says that the ultimate power to classify or declassify rests with the President of the United States AND with the Vice President of the United States. This means that the VP can reveal anything he wants without regard to its prior classification because he has co-equal classification/declassification authority with the POTUS.
I have been puzzled by how little attention has been paid to this quite significant change in the rules. TPM readers should note that this means that, had Fitzgerald found the VP to be the original source of the Plame leak, he could not have prosecuted. Because the VP cannot, by definition, leak classifid info - his utterance of a statement has the legal impact of de facto declassification.
Professor John Stuart Blackton
February 22, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What would be the grounds for appeal? You actually do have to have grounds, you know. The only one I can think of is an inadequate defense, since they did not rebut factually one word of the witnesses who testified against him. Other than that, they got nothing.
I am not at all confident of a guilty verdict; maybe a hung jury; I just don't have any idea how the jury heard all this.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree (and I won't even rate you a "1" like you did me). When TJ repeats over & over that Wilson is a serial liar, and that L Johnson is a CIA hack, and quotes Toensig as an expert (just 3 examples of many) in his efforts to be an apologist for the administration run by our own liar-in-chief, I just find everything he says suspect.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ, if you want a very good summary of how most of us see this case, go here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/02/22/libby_trial/index.html?source=newsletter
Sidney Blumenthol writes about Libby's last disinformation campaign, and he does it extremely well. Then you can come back and try to pick it to pieces.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Tokyo Rose recently die peacefully in some little town in Ohio? I'm pretty sure I heard that on NPR.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious, El Camp: What about this:
...deserves a "1" rating? Can you defend that?
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that reminder. I know I'll sleep better tonight, knowing that Darth Vader can declassify anything he wants to. Does that mean he is incapable of treason since he is the ultimate judge of what is good/bad for the world to know?
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the authority to classify, and the declassification schedule, is ultimately defined in an Executive Order, not by statute. Presidents appear to have the authority to override Executive Orders at will; this is not limited to Bush. If you look through the history of security classification, there is a series of Executive Orders, often simply clarifying.
I agree that it is not as clear what declassification authority exists for the several statutory categories of Restricted Data (i.e., nuclear), cryptographic (i.e., CRYPTO or CCO), and intelligence agents (i.e., HCS at least for the military).
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 22, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardoned by Ford in 1977, died of natural causes, in Chicago, last December.
Subsequent review showed that Iva Toguri was one of several female broadcasters, and probably did not personally give anti-American propaganda. Nevertheless, Walter Winchell stirred up demand to have her tried for treason. Later, it was determined that key Japanese witnesses against her had lied.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 22, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Just curious, Professor J S Blackton: The new rules (2006 ?) allowing the OVP to de-classify...would this new arrangement apply retro-actively?
If so, isn't that to be taken as a ploy to 'protect' the VP from the consequences of his acts in 2003 which were known to be possibly criminal in nature?
And, further, if so, might such manipulation in itself constitute a criminal act?
February 22, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
according to LJ, the only way to prove she is covert is with secret information that she "served" outside of the country in the previous 5 years. The CIA is capable of providing proof of her serving at a "Post" in an official capacity doing covert activities in that period without exposing any classified information, but they have not publicized the information, nor has Fitz provided it. This can only prove that Fitz is concealing the information or that she is not covert. The first possibility proves that Fitz is on a political witch hunt, the latter that no IIPA crime was committed.
Regardless, it is not a fact.
February 22, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men?
Motive, in this case, is probably unknowable.
But...... the redrafting of the Executive Order was not done in the WH. It was done in the OVP.
One of the basic rules of the bureaucracy is that controlling the first draft is one of the best ways of protecting the interests of one's office.
The first draft seldom survives unchanged, but one will get more of what one wants by being the originator of the document than by revising it in the clearance process.
Professor John Stuart Blackton
February 22, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That the CIA sent a criminal referral is the proof she was covert. This "fact" you conveniently discount as a political maneuver, a 'shot over the bow' of the State Dept or whatever you called it, but its a fact that destroys your whole argument so you must stick to it like a dog holding a bone.
Formulate an arugment championing the idea that the world is cube shaped and not globe shaped.
February 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cville,
Yes, indeed, Tokyo Rose did die not long ago.
She was living Chicago, and if I recall correctly, she was actually a Japanese-American who apparently was in Japan prior to the war being started. She ended up "stuck" there and as I further recall, she was basically "blackmailed" into acting as a propaganda tool -- I think for reasons of survival. If she didn't she might have been killed.
February 22, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much hate for so little reason. How sad for you
February 22, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read this op-ed by Wilson, published the week after Bush's SOTU speech
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/big_cat.html
********************************************
There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.
Hussein and Aziz both told me directly that Iraq reserved the right to use every weapon in its arsenal if invaded, just as it had against Iran and later the Kurds.
February 22, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The threshold is extremely low for being charged with a felony when responding dishonestly to Federal Investigators. It is amusing to watch the defenders of Libby try to make a case that he did not break a law when he responded dishonestly, because there was no underlying crime. That isn't the law though, and the low threshold for criminality when responding dishonestly is in large measure thanks to none other than the right's favorite black-satin moo moo fetishist, Antonin Scalia.
He wrote the 1998 majority decision, in which he mused about there being no dilemma, in fact not even a lemma, that stated even when a person responds with an exculpatory monosyllabic negative, when queried about a past action so old that the statute of limitations has mooted the criminality of the act, that person is still guilty of a felony. This is still valid even in response to a rhetorical question that has no investigative purpose, and is intended only to entrap.
The SCOTUS Decision is:
Poor Scooter, having to face
that mean ole prosecutor...
February 22, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJKING says:
McCain supports the surge but wants more troops. Of course you "hope for a guilty verdict", its the John McCain tactic, regardless of the outcome you win.
February 22, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's fairly abundant evidence that Saddam himself played a lot of brinksmanship and bluffing, even to his own mid-level generals, about having WMD. Aziz has said that one assessment was true: Saddam knew that until he had longer-range missiles, which the UN Inspectors did find, his chemical and biological payloads were useless. Again agreed-to by Aziz, the chemical-biological project was put in mothballs until the missiles were ready--and they never were.
Yes, there was some reason to be concerned about chemical and biological weapons against our troops, but it wasn't a strong threat because he didn't have the delivery systems. Aircraft, with spray tanks or bombs, would have never made it close. In 1999, and to a much lesser extent 2003, he did have South African G5 howitzers of longer range than our 155mm howitzers, although not our rockets and missiles and attack aircraft. As opposed to our artillery, they were towed, not self-propelled, and typically fired only once or twice before being destroyed. It takes a lot of artillery shells to lay down an effective chemically contaminated area.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 22, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could you copy this over to a reader blog or discussion table submission?
sPh
February 22, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
[duplicate]
February 22, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The wingers are arguing that Plame was not covert. They claim the CIA only pretended she was "for political reasons" and only asked the FBI to investigate the blowing of her cover as part of a turf war with military intelligence.
In direct contradiction to the above, they are
also arguing that the president and vice president are entitled to blow the cover of covert operations ad libitum (for political reasons) because they are "commanders in chief."
February 22, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh, good point
February 22, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I am still mystified how TJ explains the fact that the CIA referred the Plame incident to the FBI for investigation if, in fact, Plame had not been covert, I have another point I want to raise.
I enjoy reading TPMCafe because, generally speaking, the posts involve engaging in an exchange (often heated) over ideas. Let's not head down the path that some other discussion forums have taken and allow discourse here to become personal.
February 22, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fitz is not prosecuting Armitage or Libby or Rove, etc. on the central charge simply because it is very difficult to prove that they revealed classified information knowlingly.
February 22, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all be clear on the distinction between irresponsible/unethical and illegal. Revealing classified information certainly is the former, but it only constitutes the latter if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence in a court of law.
February 22, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the very explosive combination that keeps sending me back to see those Bond movies!
February 22, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave the 1 rating because I do not feel that name-calling is necessary or useful for discussion, not for the substantive basis of your post.
Personally, I like the somewhat modified version of "before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his moccasins." The modified version says that if, after doing so, you still disagree, he has to chase you for a mile while barefoot. Admittedly, this might pose problems for me if the person with whom I disagreed was wearing small 4" heels, into which I had to cram my mens' size 12 feet.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 22, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
After COMNAVSECGRUACTPACFLT, all acronyms are downhill. (Commander, Naval Security Group Activity, Pacific Fleet)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 22, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say they didn't "knowingly" leak her position implies there was nothing to 'leak'. If they didn't "knowingly leak", all that would have came out was her name and marital status. They HAD to know she was a covert operative for it to be a 'leak'.
February 22, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do, or provide links. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you more and more give the impression of one who lives under bridges and turns to stone in the sun...
February 22, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Jan:
From reading many of your missives, I can tell that you are at least aware enough to know when the proverbial Christmas Goose flys through a thread ... Around here, there is more that one Christmas Goose. I personally always make sure my mudders are pulled up around the mid-calf.
~OGD~
February 22, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as CVille Dem pointed out here:
~OGD~February 22, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Although I agree with the gist of your comment, I do have one little problem with it.
You said, "The GOP thinks."
These folks in power are NOT of the normal GOP ... by all their actions they've proved to me to be reactionaries.
~OGD~
February 22, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Someone" posting their IQ again...
You'll get nothing but chirps...
There truly appears to be 3-way tag-team running around behind the curtain... wink wink.
~OGD~
February 22, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please clarify exactly what "classified information" Joe Wilson used in his op-ed? Unfortunately, you're not providing a reference as to what you are talking about. Thank you.
February 22, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand. They knowlingly leaked the information that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, that's a fact. The hard part is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew in advance that she was covert. Perhaps Cheney didn't bother to tell them that little fact. Sure, they should have checked, but if incompetence were a crime--fill in your own funny about our current government.
February 22, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem does not cite where he came up with this construction. I can't find reference to it in USC Title 18 , which is the controlling law that Fitz is using.
There is a very good analysis of all of this at http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_citizenspook_archive.html
I reiterate, if any Bush administration officials disclosed or confirmed any information relating to the national defense that could possibly injure the USA, such official is guilty of violating 18 USC 793. They are guilty whether they saw the classified State Department memo or not under the simple test of 18 USC 793 as set forth by the Court in Morison. Of course, if they did see the State Department memo classified as SECRET, the conviction is that much esier to prove and the penalty will probably be more severe.
Now we turn our attention to United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 556 (4th Cir. 2000) . http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/0responses/2000-0969.resp.html
In that case, the question presented to the court was, whether the district court improperly defined the terms "connected with the national defense" and "relating to the national defense" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 793 and 794.
The Court's decision in that case cuts right through the media talking point alleging that Valerie Plame's status was not covert. Indeed, the issue of public knowledge of the classified information is not relevant to the issue of whether the leaker broke the law. The Court stated:
"The term "national defense" is a broad term which refers to the United States military and naval establishments and to all related activities of national preparedness.
The author also notes:
"Please note that in 2002, the Bush administration used 18 U.S.C. @ 641 to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about Drug Enforcement Administration files.]"
This is an interesting read which I recommend!
February 22, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason that I, CVille Dem (a lady, BTW) did not come up with a "construction" about divulging classified information is because it is my opinion. I happen to believe that if someone is high enough in our government to be vetted and receive the status of being trusted with our national secrets, THE BURDEN IS ON THEM TO MAKE DAMN SURE THAT WHEN THEY SAY SOMETHING TO ANYONE, (including reporters who plan to publish it in a national newspaper) IT IS NOT PROTECTED INFORMATION!
Is that too much to ask? Should there be a "construction" for that? If giving out the name of a classified CIA agent to EIGHT reporters doesn't make you lose your top secret clearance, your job, and your personal liberty, then what is the point of top secret clearance in the first place?
But you're right. It is only my opinion. You might prefer that the statutes actually say that once you have your "top secret" clearance you can decide what secret stuff ought to be published in WaPo in order to cover the current regime's ass. Maybe you can find THAT construction.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Helen, don't hold your breath.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems from the declassified INR memo:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan23/DX71.pdf
That the information that Wilson gave his CIA debriefers was treated by them as classified information.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Iraq intelligence:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_toc.htm
seems to indicate the same thing.
I don't understand why the CIA didn't take steps to keep him from using that information if it was classified. His wife was at the debriefing and as she was in that group she certainly would have known that it was classified. Shouldn't there have been an obligation on her part to secure that information?
I've thought that maybe this was the reason Wilson first tried to leak his story anonymously through journalists Pincus and Kristoff.
February 22, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
February 22, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems most people don't stop to think about it. The CIA ask for the investigation by the DOJ because under advice from their CIA counsel that laws protecting CIA agents was violated.
*******************************************
Another interest point here. Everyone assumes that is what the referral says. As the referral has never been made public it's possible that it could be more generically related to merely leaking classified information.
LOTS of us would like to see what that referral really says.
February 22, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that the Wilsons obviously knew that his report was classified, but that the White House et al are excused from knowing (and then blabbing) that Wilson's wife was classified? Your links don't come close to answering the question.
This statement of yours, "she certainly would have known that it was classified. Shouldn't there have been an obligation on her part to secure that information?"
...should certainly apply to the White House Leakers, who had all also been given top secret clearance.
From what I know, the Wilsons aren't charged with divulging secrets, nor are they charged with lying about NOT divulging them. Why do you think that might be?
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wilson does not claim Cheney sent him
******************************************
True, but many of the news reports that quickly followed, slid into that or left the impression that Cheney had asked the CIA to specifically send Wilson.
ABC's Geoff Morrell on the World News Tonight that evening:
MORRELL (7/6/03): Ambassador Joe Wilson says, at the request of Vice President Cheney's office, the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002. He spent eight days there investigating a British intelligence report that Iraq tried to obtain from Niger yellowcake uranium, which can be used to build a nuclear weapon.
CNN's American Morning when Wilson was on the next day:
BILL HEMMER (7/7/03): Ambassador Joseph Wilson is back with us here on American Morning live in D.C. Good to have you back! Good morning to you!
WILSON: Hi, Bill, and welcome to Soledad [O’Brien].
HEMMER: Well, it's great to have her.
O'BRIEN: Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
HEMMER: It's a wonderful day for us here at American Morning! You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?
WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there—at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq
********************************************
Lots more people were seeing this kind of stuff on TV than ever read the op-ed. One could easily get the impression that "at the request of the office of the vice president" meant that Cheney had asked specifically for Wilson to go and would have wanted specifically to know what Wilson found. Cheney wanted that notion countered.
********************************************
Who did something seriously reprehensible, the guy who reported facts or the folks that counterattacked and (with or without knowledge) damaged an officer's cover?
********************************************
The beef many have with Wilson is that he didn't report all the facts. The INR memo shows that he left out of the op-ed the one real new piece of intelligence he obtained on his trip - that a Nigerien official reported he had met with Iraqis and thought they wanted to buy yellowcake.
February 22, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I know, the Wilsons aren't charged with divulging secrets, nor are they charged with lying about NOT divulging them. Why do you think that might be?
*******************************************
I'm surprised that they haven't been. Doesn't it seem strange that the CIA would have a man gather what they have defined as classified information, and then apparently not care if he tells the whole world about it?
It gives the whole thing even more of an Alice in Wonderland quality
February 22, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that the Wilsons obviously knew that his report was classified, but that the White House et al are excused from knowing (and then blabbing) that Wilson's wife was classified?
*******************************************
Did I say that?
February 22, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand El Campesino and TJ King to be saying that Joseph Wilson's trip to Africa was a secret and that for this reason it was reprehensible of him to write about it. Typically, they don't address his actual words, where he was at pains to emphasize that this was not the case:
"The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret." --"What I didn't find in Africa,",by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, NY Times editorial, July 6, 2003.
February 22, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
J.S.Blackton: "Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men?"...Well, Freud, at least, thought he knew mostly what lurks in their hearts...but, You'r correct "Probably unknowable."
But what I was interested in is: Isn't it contrary to one of the most basic under-pinnings of our system of LAW, that rulings and legislation pertinent to criminal acts ex post facto may not be used to indict, convict nor exonerate?
Probably that does not factor in in this matter, but I just wanted to ask for clarification.
Thanks.
February 22, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the Executive branch's DOJ appoints special prosecutor Fitzgerald to investigate the scurrilous, treasonous, politically motivated leaking of Plame. An act that dubya himself said he'd remove anyone from his administration if found to be involved.
But yet there isn’t a hint of a case against the Wilson's. Was / is there no loyalty to dubya at the DOJ? Clearly that assertion is bogus. Are they simply incompetent? Well, some may argue that is the case at the top and at many recent appointments, but Fitzgerald and Lam discredit this excuse.
Well, I think it may be as simple as THERE IS NOTHING TO PROSECUTE!
Maybe you should lobby Gonzalez to appoint a special prosecutor to go after the Wilson’s.
____________________________________
“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
February 22, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink