I'm looking forward to watching the 60 Minutes interview Sunday evening. I still find it nearly incredible that extremely high officials in this administration intentionally blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent who was engaged in trying to prevent bad actors from obtaining nuclear weapons -- and did this for petty partisan political motives, to strike back at an effective critic of their policy, compromising ongoing nuclear non-proliferation efforts, and they have largely escaped blame for it.
If you asked a random person on the street, he or she would probably have no idea that this even happened. Remarkable.

I really miss Jennifer garner in the tv show Alias.

The show jumped the shark several times in a hopeless effort to come up with fiction more unbelievable than the reality.

ok here is something I never have figured out about all this -- exactly how was the outing of his wife as a CIA operative supposed to "discredit" Wilson?
"oh your wife works for the CIA, so we know you can't be trusted!" -- that makes no sense but everyone on both sides seems to accept it as a given.

Apparently I'm the only person in the world who doesn't get this, so if anyone could help explain I would apprecate it!

Let us pray that Valerie gets her revenge someday and the President and VP pay for their crimes against the CIA.

Coonsey’s View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Notice: We’re currently looking for writers willing to post columns for free on our website. If interested, visit the site and click on Send Post. Be sure to add the name you wish to use and the title of the column.

Special News: Be sure to read Donna Brazile’s column she wrote this week. She talks about Democrats and Coonsey’s View’s owner.

I believe you are just a bit off base on that one, Scooter and Rove would only do that stuff when Gannon stayed overnight.

It always seemed to me more likely that Valery Plame Wilson's relation to the CIA lent enhanced credibility to whatever Ambassador Wilson had to say about Iraqi interest in nuclear weapons, since she was an analyst, than that any connection reduced Amb. Wilson's credibility.

Isn't NOC status like virginity? You can only lose it once. Given that Valery Plame Wilson had worked under diplomatic cover (basically wearing a "CIA agent" badge to work at the embassy) and given that she (I have read) occasionally commuted to work at CIA HQ since returning to the USA, I don't see how she could have been covert, in the sense of the act which covers covert intelligence agents.

The only covert activity I see protected by the prosecution of Scooter Libby is the CIA's use of front companies to hide bureaucratic bloat from Congress.

Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - The question of whether Valerie Plame's employment by the Central Intelligence Agency was a secret is the key issue in the two-year investigation to determine if someone broke the law by leaking her CIA affiliation to the news media.

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald contends that Plame's friends "had no idea she had another life." But Plame's secret life could be easily penetrated with the right computer sleuthing and an understanding of how the CIA's covert employees work.

When the Tribune searched for Plame on an Internet service that sells public information about private individuals to its subscribers, it got a report of more than 7,600 words. Included was the fact that in the early 1990s her address was "AMERICAN EMBASSY ATHENS ST, APO NEW YORK NY 09255."
A former senior American diplomat in Athens, who remembers Plame as "pleasant, very well-read, bright," said he had been aware that Plame, who was posing as a junior consular officer, really worked for the CIA.

According to CIA veterans, U.S. intelligence officers working in American embassies under "diplomatic cover" are almost invariably known to friendly and opposition intelligence services alike.

"If you were in an embassy," said a former CIA officer who posed as a U.S. diplomat in several countries, "you could count 100 percent on the Soviets knowing."

"Undercover" is not the same as "non-official cover", as Mr. Johnson explained.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

leftAhead said:

Prior to the Iraq war, now-National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was an integral part of misleading intelligence dissemination and approved clandestine meetings between Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and members of a secretive cabal inside the Department of Defense’s controversial Office of Special Plans.

And another Iran/Contra criminal surfaces in the Bush/Cheney gang; Manucher Ghorbanifar, Ollie North's pal.

Gorbanifar, Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, Otto Reich, and Reagan's political director, Mitch Daniels.

I'm sure the Bush gang will hire Ollie and his shredding machine about 2 months before they leave office.

I wonder what Fawn Hall is doing nowadays.

Don Key said:

I would say that, more than that, it is payback for challenging them. It’s like the mafia threat to any future snitch: We’ll just ruin your wife’s career, because we can with impunity, and at the same time cast doubt on your claims.

Don,

exactly!

They were saying loudly,'See how vicious we are if you f**k us? We even outed a CIA agent working on WMD proliferation. Now think of what we'll do to you if you cross us'.

If I may make what might seem nit-picky, but is meaningful, the two terms of art, covert and clandestine, are not the same. The recipient of a covert action knows something happened to them, such as being bombed. What makes such an act covert is that the source is not identifiable, or perhaps is adequately deniable.

A clandestine action, however, if done correctly, is something never recognized by the target. This will most often be information collection, by espionage (one form of HUMINT), SIGINT or other technical methods such as MASINT or IMINT (by a stealthy flying machine or satellite).

A "perfect crime" sort of assassination, when everyone thinks the victim died of natural causes, is arguably clandestine.

Diplomatic cover doesn't necessarily break clandestinity. There are people who used to be real State Department employees, and left to go into business, be idly rich, etc.

Especially with espionage, there have been actual families that had generations of spies, or, if one spy (or case officer) is identified, a counterespionage organization may be able to work backwards and produce a "wiring diagram" of that person's contacts. Those contacts will then be subject to counterespionage investigation.

CIA proprietaries have been problematic at times, but I don't see them as "bureaucratic bloat". When the relationship to CIA becomes known, they are no longer useful, and can sink and swim as real businesses if they like. Sometimes, the business aspects get comical. In one cable-tapping operation in Germany, the tapping equipment had to be hidden. So, the people doing it (presumably what variously has been called Division D or the Special Collection Service) put it in the back room of a store selling the drabbest British fabrics they could find.

Drab colors, in British fashion, often mean that the wearer is of the true elite. Unfortunately, some German fashion maven decided that it was the Year of Drab, and the one Drab Store was overrun with customers. It was said that the CIA had to have an emergency airlift of tweed and subdued sweater yarn.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

(waves back)--I've been busy on the SIGINT and MASINT links (and a bunch of subordinate articles) at Wikipedia. Good place to find out more than you ever wanted to learn about the more exotic technical methods of intelligence collection.

What I'm cautiously considering is an "overarching" that says how the whole intelligence management system is supposed to work, and how it variously is separate from policymaking. It may also include not the OSP fiasco, but how policy, our own capabilities, and intelligence should be fused. In the past, the Pentagon group that did that sort of thing professionally was called "Net Assessments". I prefer the Soviet term of art, "Correlation of forces".

Please forgive this humble grasshopper for discussing how intelligence is supposed to work, given reality is the Cheney Administration.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Whether a crime was committed depends on whether Valerie Plame Wilson was one of those whose identities were protected under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. One of the statute's authors testified that Mrs. Wilson was not covered, and it looks like the Agency wasn't trying very hard to keep her employment secret. If that mattered, why did they send Amb. Wilson to Niger, or not make his trip contingent on silence later?

Amb. Wilson shopped his Niger story around for a while before the NYT piece gained traction. I would like to have seen Amb. Wilson and David Corn deposed in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, since it seems likely to me that Amb. Wilson himself used his wife's insideer's access to lend credibility to his story when he spoke to David Corn. I don't tkink he considered her a NOC at that point.

Right. And the point applies even if some person or persons not in intelligence or not even in government had learned of, by whatever means, or had guessed her employment status.

"One of the statute's authors" doesn't quite imply a representative majority of them, especially since you're referring to Victoria Toensing. (A sounder defense is that the revealer has to know the status of the revealed to be criminally liable, and that seems a high bar.)

According to today's WaPo, Plame was diplomatic before being brought back and groomed for NOC status. This involved developing a new legend, being visibly unemployed, living with parents, etc. Surely some NOC goals are so touchy that only an absultely clean, new hire, would be used. Other settings might be a bit less scary, and allow a recycled officer to be deployed that way. Especially since Plame was used that way, it seems less of a problem that she was not super-duper secret afterward. Still, not advertising previous connections would have some value. 

The Post story also says she was expecting Saddam to have WMD, along with many colleagues. So there was no agenda to damage Bush on Wilson's part, unless you consider trying to avoid a bad war to be an attack on the president.

Tom Wright,

Correct on Toensing, a Republican operative who was ubiquitous on TV talking shows during the Clinton years, always ready to carry the right wing charges against Clinton. She was practically reduced to babbling when she testified before Waxman's Committee.

It doesn't matter that Bush's CIA Director, Michael Hayden, said she was covert, nor that Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity (take that, Victoria), the Forces of Wingnuttery will never admit to Plame's covert status, its like a leg on a 3 legged stool to them, lose one leg and the whole thing collapses.

You couldn't wrest her true status from a wingnut with a Papal Encyclical, a roadside bomb and a sworn affidavit from The Heritage Foundation.

You should know that no amount of factual material ever "settles" anything once the nuttier right-wing elements decide to latch onto it.

I don't see that there was any intent to discredit Joe Wilson by outing Valerie Plame's covert identity. It was pure political revenge.

It's been said that most of the actions taken by this administration have multiple purposes. I think this is a prime example.

In increasing order of importance, (and unfortunately in decreasing order of discussion by the MSM), outing Plame accomplishes the following:

1. Casts some doubt on Wilson's report from Niger by supporting the idea that his assignment was based on nepotism, not his own qualifications. It also creates a (false) talking point that he lied about why he went, which could impact his credibility; and it reinforces a previous talking point that the CIA isn't *really* very good at its job. That is, blame the intelligence agencies, not Cheney, the OSP, and the White House.

2. Like the horse's head in the bed in Godfather, it's a "don't fuck with us" act to discourage others from challenging the administration with facts.

3. It's a pre-emptive move to give the administration room to dismiss any statements Plame may end up making as "sour grapes" for being outed.

4. It decreases the amount of useful and accurate information about Iran's nuclear program so that Dick can fear-monger the US into military action against Iran.

Thats just my $0.02

God how I love well-crafted subversion. You just keep on rockin' Larry.

I'm certainly not an expert on this case, but I always took the official point of the "outing" to be aimed at discrediting Wilson (and therefore his findings) by painting him as a hack on a junket at the behest of his wife, not a disinterested investigator.

And of course, the leakers did have the dual political motive of exacting revenge.

Not trying to be a pedant, but it's "moi." "Mois" means "month." I suppose "mois" could be plural, but in the case of "me," it's better to keep that singular, now matter how undercover you are. N'est-ce-pas?

I think it's pretty apparent that she met the definitions in the statute. As noted above, it was probably the knowledge test that kept Fitzgerald from prosecuting under the IIPA.

Yeah, Howard.  English would be helpful.  Also being concise.  Is your point that there are plenty of spies out there who could be traced, but when the White House knocks itself out to publicize the identity of one of our spies to avenge a truthteller (who happens to be the spy's husband), it really is inexusable (and a crime, to boot?)

If so, I agree.  If not, please restate in words I can understand

Jan

Rated 5 for want of a 4.9 rating option, CJ.  I just think one has to consider the rubbing out of Brewster Jenning Associates in this, maybe a potential #5 on your list.  I just don't think Dick cares that much about getting even - he cares about making money for his buds, even the ones he shoots in the face.

Neoboho

Duplicate, sorry.

Plame's status was not "proven in court". Libby was charged with lying to investigators and Fitzgerald opposed attempts by Libby's defense tean to dispute her status.

Can you provide proof of that assertion? Specifically, proof from court documents and not just someone's or your own opinion.

Reading the motions and other documents show that it was Libby and his lawyers who did not want Plame's status revealed, for the very good reason that it would prejudice the jury to find out that she was indeed NOC.

Look through the documents and you will find from both sides statements like these:

While the government has agreed not to present evidence at trial to establish that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was in fact classified in June and July 2003, the government intends to offer proof to establish that...

Consistent with the position the government has taken prior to, and during trial, the government has no objection to a limiting instruction stating that the nondisclosure agreements are to be considered only with respect to defendant’s state of mind, and not as an allegation that the defendant in fact disclosed classified information in violation of the agreements...

The emphases are mine, but the constant ignorance surrounding this issue is yours.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

And to quote JohnW1141:

"Chew tobacco, chew tobacco, chew tobacco wheeee..." and before long the grasshopper would spit up a dark brown liquid and we'd all go " EWWWWWWWWWW".

OGD,

OK, own up, you used to do that chant too, didn't you?

If so, you elder folk had early experience with the excrement of the Bush administration. Surely you found some of the insects under young Bushes?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This is a serious question. The heart of the definitions of covert and clandestines, which I learned in intelligence courses, was

Covert
The fact of an action is known, but the sponsor, or actor, that caused the action is either unknown or plausibly deniable. An example might be an assassination, by a sniper, who is not captured.
Clandestine
The fact of an action is not known. Successful espionage is a good example, where the spy continues to operate.

Do you see CIA, IIPA, or both using, or rejecting these definitions? If so, what are the missing definitions?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Definition in IIPA:

) The term "covert agent" means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

Howard :-) :-)

If "...the government has agreed not to present evidence at trial to establish that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was in fact classified in June and July 2003...", how could (Ann)"Valerie was an NOC" have been "proved in court"?

The ratings on these posts are a hoot!

That's what I mean, Howard. People keep acting like the definitions the agencies use flange up with the IIPA and they just don't.

Same with the 5 year rule on overseas service. Does that mean you were stationed overseas during that period or that you could be stationed in the US and took a plane trip abroad? One would think the intent of the law was to protect people on foreign stations, but that's not been tested at trial.

Note that in February there was a plan to gain full sanction from the UN Security Council. Wilson has said he was startled to hear the famous 16 words, but we had not invaded, and we had not implied we would go in functionally alone.

And a loyal employee would perhaps not want to stir things up right on the eve of invasion, if we were going in. I don't see a problem, if the beef is that Wilson felt we had not followed a rigorous procedure of indicting Saddam with sound evidence. He held fire until after "Mission Accomplished".

Being picky, is the Februrary date a publication date or a writing date, and are we sure of that? Worth asking since there are only four days separating the two events.

I really don't think it is any longer arguable that there was an unseemly and reckless desire to invade Iraq as quickly as possible. Plame's colleagues in CIA had nothing like a consensus that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I'd say it was rather the opposite---none of the pros seriously considered Saddam as involved with AQ. So it is not trivial, unhelpful sniping for Wilson to raise the question.

Given that we sucked the life out of the Afghan operation for Iraq, it is a serious indictment of Bush, I'd say, that actions were decided on gut feeling and wishful thinking. Gut feeling is fine when one is desperate, or when it doesn't matter at all. Unfortunately, we were not desperate then, but surely are now.

Do you have one clue as to what I was saying, or are you just confirming my original opinion?

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

Wilson wrote that on 2/6/03 a week after the SOTU speech on 1/29/03. How come he waited until June to write the op-ed saying he disagreed with the SOTU speech?

I don't know that he said he disagreed with the entire speech, just the 16 words connecting Iraq, uranium and Africa. The US had only 2 'good (but slippery) cases' for nuclear activity in Iraq, the Niger uranium and the tubes. Both were based on highly dubious intel, but apparently Wilson was shooting down Cheney's favorite.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

(Seashell): "Do you have one clue as to what I was saying...?"
Do you? "...(T)he government has no objection to a limiting instruction stating that the nondisclosure agreements are to be considered only with respect to defendant’s state of mind, and not as an allegation that the defendant in fact disclosed classified information in violation of the agreements..."

I have no objection to an agreement that "(integer multiples of six are even) implies (18 is even) but does not imply (every integer greater than three is the midpoint of an interval bounded by primes)".

"(N)ondisclosure agreements are to be considered only with respect to defendant’s state of mind, and NOT as an allegation that the defendant in fact disclosed classified information in violation of the agreements" hardly implies "the defendant in fact disclosed classified information".

Either Wilson had a valid quibble, or he didn't. If the former, he's been unfairly attacked; if the latter, why pay any attention?

Yes, and even stranger, after Tenet informed Cheney and Libby in a highly classified (at the time) June 17, 03 memo that the CIA had decided the Niger stuff was a hoax, why did they still embark on the campaign to discredit Wilson that led to Novak's eventual July 14th column? Select members of Congress were informed the next day.

What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins

If the former, he's been unfairly attacked; if the latter, why pay any attention?
*****************************************

Come on - because he was on the NYT editorial page and all over the talk shows for the rest of that week

A declassified version of the report the CIA wrote on Wilson's debrief is shown behind Tab 4 in the State Department's INR memo on the matter. Linked here:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan23/DX71.pdf

Are there ANY covert, secret, undercover agents that work at Langley or is everyone there known to the public?

It all hinges on whether the employee enters the campus through the front door, or the food services facility entrance. And ya' know in this day and age, what with outsourcing, it's amazing what a person can get away with by carrying a simple tool box and a plumber's plunger.

~OGD~

Duplicate. Sorry.