Another NY Times piece on Plame:
At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative’s identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa.
The two issues had become inextricably linked because Joseph C. Wilson IV, the husband of the unmasked C.I.A. officer, had questioned Mr. Bush’s assertion, prompting a damage-control effort by the White House that included challenging Mr. Wilson’s standing and his credentials. A federal grand jury investigation is under way by a special counsel to determine whether someone illegally leaked the officer’s identity and possibly into whether perjury or obstruction of justice occurred during the inquiry.
People who have been briefed on the case said the White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, were helping prepare what became the administration’s primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union address six months earlier.
They had exchanged e-mail correspondence and drafts of a proposed statement by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to explain how the disputed wording had gotten into the address. Mr. Rove, the president’s political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, coordinated their efforts with Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, who was in turn consulting with Mr. Tenet.
At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush’s speech.
The work done by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby on the Tenet statement during this intense period has not been previously disclosed. People who have been briefed on the case discussed this critical time period and the events surrounding it to demonstrate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were not involved in an orchestrated scheme to discredit Mr. Wilson or disclose the undercover status of his wife, Valerie Wilson, but were intent on clarifying the use of intelligence in the president’s address. Those people who have been briefed requested anonymity because prosecutors have asked them not to discuss matters under investigation.
The special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has been examining this period of time to determine whether the officials’ work on the Tenet statement led in some way to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, according to the people who have been briefed.
Tom Maguire, meanwhile, is hopping mad, while Talk Left asserts that Rove has changed his story.
Tim F
Yep, Tom’s nailed it. The media is conspiring against Rove. There couldn’t possibly be any other explanation for Rove and Libby having one story, and everybody else having another. Nossir.
Like I said about another distinguished member of our little greenhouse, soon enough Tom will be spreading nasty innuendo about the prosecutor himself, and then Rove’s sentencing judge, and then the appelate judge. The infallibility of George W. Christ and his glorious cabinet must never be questioned.
Clever
Alliterate much? Heh.
In more Rove news, Larry Johnson [former CIA Analyst] is on C-SPAN3 right now really tearing into the Plamegate/Rovegate/Mmm-mmm-yellowcakegate players. Interesting clairifications on Plame background and “who’s covert, who’s not”, among other things.
Tim F
For people whose primary source of nutrition comes from links, here’s a link to some links.
The WSJ link seems to be protected by a firewall; here’s a summary.
DougJ
Maybe I need to translate the phrase “tempest in a teapot” into French so the liberals will understand it.
Sojourner
That may be the conservatives’ opinion but things like this that affect national security are hardly a tempest in a teapot for us liberals.
Marcus Wellby
Silly Sojourner, to people like DougJ all that matters is Bush. The country is a distant second, if even that. It is all about the worship of Dear Leader. These guys would be right at home in the good ol’ USSR. The ironic thing is they think they are the biggest patriots of all.
Tim F
I just wonder when Doug gets so far out that a rightwinger calls him frothy. My money says that Doug’s wondering the same thing.
Capriccio
Hey DougJ, here’s another teapot for you…Teapot Dome. (and don’t expect Rsuh or Hannity to explain it to you, you’ll have to look it up for yourself).
Pollblog
Tenet was an idiot who doubled the number of employees(Unionists, just ask Moveon.org), over 100,000 at the CIA because of some bizarre love for Human Intelligence, which anyone in the 1st Iraq war can tell you is a load of garbage.
Rice got her WMD degree and had to be famous, maybe it was the years at the mansion, so the CIA ‘covert’ policy became WMD and everybody had to study more(yes, those Republicans HIRE fed employees for 20 years and a pension;check the new federal jobs). The Plame thing aimed Wilson directly at Rice and WMD because she basically started a war to rule a country and get a regular fed job with an ‘s'(ohhhhhh) clearance.
Plame is OOPs
pmm
Tim F: I don’t think Mr. Maguire is asserting that Rove and Libby are right and everyone else is wrong. Rather, he is noting that the media is a part of this story, and their reporting is adversely affected by that fact.
There is a tendency for commentators on Balloon-Juice to simply dismiss links or arguments Mr. Cole provides as being partisan or unworthy of refutation. Probably the most blatant example of this is the commentator who kept denouncing Mr. Cole’s use of “GOP talking points”. Whether a fact, argument, or theory comes from Kos, Instapundit, a DNC email, or a RNC fax, shouldn’t it be addressed on its merits? As someone sympathetic to this administration, Mr. Maguire’s analysis of the Plame investigation makes sense to me. If you don’t agree with it, why?
TarHeelCP
God forbid we ever find out that Rove had sex with an itern. Now THAT would really get us angry!
pmm
TarHeelCP, I think I speak for a lot of conservatives when I say that Rove having sex with an intern is grounds for dismissal, if only for aesthetic reasons.
DougJ
Okay, liberals, here it is for you in French:
L’enquête Plame, c’est une tempête dans un verre d’eau.
Steven
What doesn’t make sense about Maguire’s analysis? First, Mr. Maguire (as with virtually everyone else commenting on the matter) really doesn’t know what was said in the grand jury, so he is no so much analyzing as speculating. Or spinning on behalf of his favorite administration…take your pick. Second, you really believe that senior administration officials are getting their intelligence data from reporters and Tim Russert? Seriously, do you believe that? That would imply that Tim Russert actually works for a living, rather than digging through his archives for out of context quotes to spring on his guests.
TarHeelCP
pmm, I don’t think that anyone’s sex life is grounds for dismissal. Poor quality of work is grounds for dismissal, and yes having sex at the office can lead to poor work, but there is nothing wrong with consenting adults having sex!
Sojourner
Yep. Silly me. What could be more important than serving King George.
pmm
TarheelCP: I was joking–your comment conjured an image that was not pretty, regardless of political orientation.
Steven
DougJ~
un verre d’eau means a glass of water. Teapot is une théière. Get some culcha, wilya!
TarHeelCP
pmm, I’ll give you that. Sorry to take you literally. Been that kind of day.
Capriccio
M. Steven:
Bien fait!
pmm
Steven, I agree that there is a lot of speculation going on regarding the Plame investigation, and that ultimately we’ll have to wait for the results to see what happens next. Mr. Maguire’s point, and what’s making analysis/speculation so difficult is what SECDEF Rumsfeld called “known unknowns”. In this case, we know that the large media organizations have been participants in this story, and that they haven’t reported fully on their involvement, for whatever reason. When the editors of the NY Times argue aspects of the investigation, they presumably know who Ms. Miller’s source was, or whether other media personnel can support or refute Mr. Rove’s version of events. How that informs their editorials can only be conjectured, but what is frustrating is that they could tell us, but don’t choose to. This leads to spin, as folks create a favorable narrative about the parts of the story that are unknown. Mr. Maguire’s point is that we would have less speculation if certain media players and outlets were more forthcoming.
As to your second point, whether Ms. Plame’s identity/status was “intelligence” goes to the heart of the issue. The federal government is pretty big: undoubtedly the sort of senior journalists involved in this have multiple contacts who would be in a position to know. Since the pro-Rove storyline has the reporters requesting confirmation of the information, I don’t find that implausible. Do you think that Ms. Plame was so deep undercover that only top administration officials would know about her?
Having said that, I am completely amazed that Karl Rove is anywhere near this scandal. When it was first reported that he was a (the?) source, it seemed too perfect that a major villian of the left would be implicated in a major scandal that has motivated the left for so long. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeff Gannon doesn’t somehow become critical to the story at this point.
Stormy70
I’m Plamed out. When Fitzy shows his cards, I will comment. Lord knows, I do not trust the press at all considering their amicus brief says one thing, and they are saying another. I will just wait, then I will either gloat or gnash my teeth.
DougJ
Thanks, Steven. The interesting thing is that when I went on the internet to look up tempest and it gave me the phrase I gave as an example of the use of the word tempest.
Tim F
undoubtedly the sort of senior journalists involved in this have multiple contacts who would be in a position to know.
The State Dept memo describing Plame’s identity listed it as ‘top secret.’ You are wrong.
pmm
Tim F: A Top Secret clearance is fairly common within the government, so I don’t believe a TS clearance on a paper proves me wrong. Otherwise, a variety of recent stories to include the CIA air service front for renditions would never have come to light. Also, I believe the memo in dispute had a paragraph listed as “Secret”, which is a lower grade than Top Secret. Or are you referring to a different memo?
Jon H
The main flaw with TM’s theory/dudgeon is that he’s seeing a lack of reporting on whether reporters were questioned informally, and interpreting that to mean zero attention from the prosecutor.
I think that’s jumping to conclusions. It seems far more likely that Fitzgerald issued subpoenas after determining who needed to be subpoena’d.
It seems to me Fitzgerald would only need to subpoena reporters who talked to the White House about Wilson and Niger. He wouldn’t need to subpoena reporters who asked Rove about some run-of-the-mill political issue, which would be most of them.
Since it’s a crime to lie to a federal investigator, I suspect journalists in an interview by the FBI would tell the truth about the content of their discussions, even without being under oath. It would be too easy to catch them in a lie, leading to being Martha’d.
They wouldn’t even be asked to reveal ‘sources’, they could just answer questions about subject matter.
Jon H
“Also, I believe the memo in dispute had a paragraph listed as “Secret”, which is a lower grade than Top Secret.”
It had a section, discussing Plame, marked S/NF, meaning “Secret, not to be shared with foreign intelligence”.
Seems to me that while needless classification of whole documents has run amok, the fact that the specific passage was marked is highly suggestive that it wasn’t just a case of classification by habit, but rather was felt to require particular emphasis as to status.
That kind of specificity is the kind of thing you might expect to see in an over-classified environment, where it becomes necessary to say “Really, this part is secret, we mean it.”
Tim F
The memo was ‘top secret,’ her paragraph was separately marked ‘secret.’ WSJ.
If you have reason to believe that Plame’s identity was commonly known, please share it. Captain Ed and others have claimed Andrea Mitchell said something dispositive but nobody’s ever found a transcript. In fact her employers say the reverse:
Unless you have some reason to believe that Plame’s ID was common knowledge, you’re making an argument from ignorance.
pmm
I’m going to have to abandon this thread lest I lose my job, but I interpret Mr. Maguire’s argument differently. I don’t think he’s worried about the prosecutor dropping the ball, but rather that the lack of reporting on their own involvement in the story looks bad and suggests that they are failing in their role as an honest broker of the news. Even if a reporter was questioned and cleared of by the special prosecutor of having any relevance to the story, shouldn’t that be addressed at some point by the parent media organization, if they are covering the story?
I’ve never seen a document that was classified by paragraph, but my understanding is that the memo was a compilation of info from multiple sources, so perhaps the paragraph-by-paragraph classification reflected different sources for each paragraph?
Tim F
If I put the shopping list in an interfamily memo, the whole thing would be classified on the general principle that I don’t want people complaining that I eat too much ice cream. The line or two for Captain Ed’s Leather and Fetish Emporium, OTOH, would get “S/NF” for obvious reasons. The kids should know that it won’t kill anybody to leak our lettuce brand, but You_Do_Not_Talk_About_Captain_Ed’s.
pmm
Tim F: Please re-read what I wrote. You’re reformulation of my statement significantly alters its meaning. I didn’t claim that it was common knowledge, but rather that there are many unknowns in this story, and simply being classified doesn’t mean that it must have come from the top. Their defense of confirming information from a media source is not impossible.
Regarding classification, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, I couldn’t follow the link to the original story, as it is behind a WSJ firewall. However, the classification process does not have TS material upgraded to Secret. Secret is less than Top Secret. For the entire document to be marked Top Secret suggests that there is at least some TS material in it. But if data is Top Secret, you don’t “upgrade” it with a “Secret” classification. Everything that is TS is at least Secret already. It’s like saying that a 30-year old is also at least 15-years old. They’d have to be to get to 30.
Tim F
It looks like “S/NF” actually is an upgrade from “TS.” The part about ‘not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies’ is the clincher. Things that must not be shared with England, France or Israel compose a small subset of things labeles ‘Top Secret.’
pmm
I have to respectfully disagree regarding your interpretation of the S/NF. For example, as part of my military duties, I’ve read documents that were not classified at all–not even confidential–but they were marked not for foreign sources. This meant I wasn’t supposed to share the FM’s with our allies during joint operations–so when working alongside our counterparts in foreign service branches, we couldn’t reveal the document to them.
Operational Security protocols are that, even if something is open-source and not classified, steps should be taken to restrict access. Another example would be the alpha rostser of a military unit doesn’t get tossed around, even though it isn’t classified, because it contains information of use to our enemies when used in conjunction with other open source data.
Mike S
Classified is classified. If you want to release info from a classified document, you declassify it.
As far as I’m concerned lately there have been too many competing leaks. I’m starting to wonder if some aren’t red hearings designed to completely muddy the waters and raise expectations. That way when the investigation is done, and indictments are either made or not, one side or the other can point to the things we’re debating now and say it’s proof of culpability or vindication that these things were not addressed.
Tim F
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=4998#comment-50298
That is useful to know. In that case it’s not clear to me whta is the significance of the additional acronyms around the Plame paragraph. What is clear to me is that handing the information out to the press is definitely one way of sharing it with a foreign power.
Starting?
Veeshir
I would like to note that this is in the NY Times and it’s full of conjecture and they know the fricking truth.
They are demanding to know the truth but they won’t tell us what they know that could possibly clear all this up. If it’s Rove, he has given leave to disclose him and it only hurts him for Miller to not tell her source. It allows the NY Times to publish conjecture pieces on exactly when Karl Rove tried to have Valerie PLame killed.
They’re not even worth making fun of anymore, I would believe the Weekly World News before I believe anything in that rag. I’m waiting for them to claim Bush tried to draft Bat-Boy for duty in Afghanistan where he can get into the caves and find bin Laden.
Wait, I should have sold that the WWW. Oh well.
pmm
Mike S: That I can agree with entirely. And before I lose track of my main point: supposing that Plame’s identity was merely ‘secret’ or even ‘confidential’, that doesn’t negate the breach of security. Merely the level of secrecy around the information affects the likelihood that it could have come from more than one source.
I wonder if the same folks who are treating this as grave OR dismissing this as “nada-gate” will continue to apply the principles they are establishing with Plame to future leaks of classified information, even when there isn’t a partisan angle to it?
Jon H
Tim F writes: “That is useful to know. In that case it’s not clear to me whta is the significance of the additional acronyms around the Plame paragraph”
The NOFORN is apparently just a modifier or restriction, which is placed on material also marked with some other classification (or “sensitive but unclassified”).
Steven
PMM~
A couple points. Since the media are intimately involved in this story, why would anyone expect them to act as honest brokers? Particularly coming from someone like Maguire who has a bias toward the Administration and thus a deep distrust of the MSM, isn’t it a little disingenuous for him to now castigate them for not being honest about a story they are up to their eyeballs in when he thinks they slant everything against the Administrative anyway?
As to your point about the pro-Rove storyline, why should I believe that? Why shouldn’t I believe Bob Novak’s first version (in my experience, first versions tend to be the most accurate)? His source called and told him the info. Why isn’t that the most credible version of events? I don’t have a lot of respect for Novak or his opinions, but in the first version of this story, before the shit hit the fan, why would he distort the origin of the source? I don’t know whether Rove was NOvak’s source. I do know that the Administrative is doing some serious spinning and damage control and I really don’t believe much of anything coming from the White House or its spokespeople on this issue. One last question: if the pro-Rove version is true, why did the White House initially deny that Rove had talked to anyone? If this pro-Rove version is true, why didn’t they say so to begin with? Why is that smart people don’t learn the most important truth of public life: it’s not the act; it’s the coverup. Getcha everytime.
Mike S
Starting may be the wrong word. However it was much easier to pick out who the sources were and what their agenda was last week. Not so much the case this week.
Jon H
“I wonder if the same folks who are treating this as grave OR dismissing this as “nada-gate” will continue to apply the principles they are establishing with Plame to future leaks of classified information, even when there isn’t a partisan angle to it?”
Part of the problem with that is, there’s lots of classified information which really doesn’t need to be. And there’s also a concept of wrongly-classified information. For instance, it’s illegal to classify information to cover up a crime. I think it’d be fine to leak that kind of wrongly-classified information.
And, much classified information isn’t actually illegal to leak, though it would probably be a firing offense. We don’t have an Official Secrets Act. We have a few laws which apply to specific kinds of information (agent identities, codes and cyphers, troop movements, etc) but we don’t have a general law against dissemination of government secrets.
Prosecution of people for leaking agent identities is pretty easy to support; if little damage was done by leaking Plame’s identity, that’s just because of sheer luck; I don’t think anyone should get off because “nobody was hurt”.
That said, if the agent or spy is someone really reprehensible – a ruthless druglord, say, or a mobster active in human trafficking, I don’t know if I’d have a problem with journalists outing that person.
Mike S
Part of the problem with that is, there’s lots of classified information which really doesn’t need to be.
Sure. But the point is that it IS classified. I wrote about this before. My father was an advisor in Vietnam in the early 60’s. When I asked him 30 years later, when he was dying, what he did there he said he couldn’t tell me because it was classified. When I pointed out how long ago it was he said it didn’t matter, it was classified.
I’m not saying that all leaks are bad, classified or not. The Pentagon papers were classified and proof that our government was lying to us. There are times when our right to know the truth outweigh the needs for classification. But all indications lead me to believe that this situation wasn’t one of those. All indications are saying, to me, that this was an attempt to discredit Wilson in any way they could. And as the ISG final report shows, Wilson was right.
pmm
Steven: Those are fair questions. I agree that Mr. Maguire is definitely friendly to the administration (as am I), but you can accept his facts without accepting his interpretation. In this case, media organizations are publicly asking questions and demanding answers from the administration when they already know some of the answers. Given their dual role of being both part of the story and reporting on it, I think the media has a responsibility to be as open as they expect the administration to be. Without that openness, can I be forgiven for thinking they are acting in bad faith? They sign onto an amicus brief that claims no crime was committed. How much of their own argument is incorporated into an editorial demanding questions from Rove for his wrongdoing? Minus that transparency, shouldn’t the media be treated with the same skepticism as the other parties in this scandal?
Also, I’m not asking you to believe the pro-Rove storyline. For all I know, Rove could easily have been the primary source of the information (disregarding the legal implications, which are a separate matter). I would think that Novak and the rest of the media figures implicated in this could resolve the situation in a matter of days if they wanted to. That they haven’t suggests to me that they should explain why–that they were asked to clam up by the special prosecutor, or perhaps because their actual sources haven’t signed a waiver.
pmm
Also, I have been very disappointed in the fact that the administration has responded as they have–the whole “we don’t want to interfere with an ongoing investigation” thing rings hollow.
DougJ
The libs are saying that Fitzgerald wouldn’t be pursuing this at all if no crime were committed. That simply isn’t the case: prosecutors often convence grand juries for long periods of time even when they believe no crime was committed. That is what district attorneys call “fact finding” and it is a common practice.
pmm
Jon H wrote:
Here’s why I asked about the partisan angle. There are a lot of people who think Rove should be fired regardless of whether he violated the law. You can argue whether his “whistleblowing” outweighed the national security issue or not, but I think the Rove-friendly sources make a pretty good case that the administration had a motivation to correct erroneous information being put out by Amb. Wilson. Please note, I have no intention of refighting the Amb. Wilson credibility war in this thread.
As for whether the public interest outweighs the cost to national security, when judging leaks, I agree. But barring the Plame scandal, when was the last time the media dropped the hammer on a leak of classified information? And if this leak adversely affected national security, why have the media closed ranks around Judith Miller?
John S.
I think comments like this say an awful lot about the conservative position. If Rove is exonerated, then they will “gloat” and happily rub the entire affair in the faces of non-conservatives (particularly the “liberal” media).
But if Rove is found guilty, why would they “gnash their teeth”? Would they be upset because a senior (possibly the senior) official of the White House committed a crime? Or would they simply be upset that the scandal would be a major kink in the chain of the Republican machine? Do they care more about justice or politics?
With comments like this, one has to wonder.
DougJ
John, it is silly to view this as anything other than politics. So “superspy” Valerie Plame can’t work her “top secret” desk job at Langley anymore? Big deal. Politics is a contact sport. Stop whining about it. Stop pretending anyone in the CIA cares (save for her office mates who must have enjoyed checking out the lovely Ms. Plame as she surfed the web or whatever she did there). Stop prettending the American people care.
When Rove is vindicated, you will owe him and the American people a big apology.
John S.
This is an absurd and patently false observation. There is no doubt in my mind that Fitzgerald had compelling enough evidence to warrant keeping this investigation going for over two years and landing a reporter in jail.
To suggest that Fitzgerald has wasted all this time (and countless millions of taxpayer dollars) on a case where he “believed no crime was committed” simply to lead the grand jury on is just about the most ludicrous explanation I have heard yet.
It just goes to show how far Bush/Rove apologists are willing to reach to ignore the truth (especially if the truth is unfavorable to their side’s position). Something definitely stinks in Washington, and Fitzgerald can smell it.
John S.
When he is vindicated? I think you mean if is he vindicated, don’t you?
Or should we just tell Fitzgerald to stop the entire investigation because you and Ken Mehlman think this whole thing is just leading to an inevitable conclusion?
pmm
John S.
You make a valid point, but it goes both ways. Suppose Rove and the administration are cleared of wrong-doing, will liberals be relieved that no crime was committed, or gnash their teeth that Rove and the administration got away?
Nonetheless, it is important to try to maintain your principles over partisanship, no matter your ideology.
DougJ
“Or should we just tell Fitzgerald to stop the entire investigation because you and Ken Mehlman think this whole thing is just leading to an inevitable conclusion?”
You might as well, yes. On the off chance someone is convicted, they’ll be pardoned. It’s just politics.
pmm
John S.
As more evidence comes out, the more I doubt there will be anything close to total vindication for the administration in this matter. But I must respectfully disagree when you write:
The Starr inquiry lasted even longer and cost even more. Did it’s length & cost alone justify the results? many critiques of Mr. Starr often suggest that he wasted that money and come up with little to show for it.
Jon H
DougJ writes: “The libs are saying that Fitzgerald wouldn’t be pursuing this at all if no crime were committed. That simply isn’t the case: prosecutors often convence grand juries for long periods of time even when they believe no crime was committed. That is what district attorneys call “fact finding” and it is a common practice.”
Fitzgerald didn’t even get the case until 5 or six months after it happened, during which the DOJ had plenty of time to quash it or come up with clear exculpatory evidence to get the White House out of trouble.
DougJ writes: ” checking out the lovely Ms. Plame as she surfed the web or whatever she did there”
Ms. Plame could beat the crap out of you, Doug. She could probably tear your kidneys out through your nostrils before you knew what was going on.
DougJ
“Ms. Plame could beat the crap out of you, Doug. She could probably tear your kidneys out through your nostrils before you knew what was going on.”
That’s entirely possible. I’m just saying she’s kinda hot.
DougJ
And, Jon H, she could do the same to her husband Joe Wilson, which is why he went scampering off to Niger as soon as she asked him. Can you say “whipped”?
John S.
I can only speak for myself, but if Rove is exonerated, I would not gnash my teeth over it. I would definitely prefer that no crime was committed, rather than get hung up on condemning a single person (although such was not the case with most conservatives during Clinton’s impeachment).
Jon H
pmm writes: “I think the Rove-friendly sources make a pretty good case that the administration had a motivation to correct erroneous information being put out by Amb. Wilson.”
But was their ONLY route available the one of naming a CIA employee? And for what? To spare themselves some political embarrassment. That’s a pretty low bar, if it’s okay to out a CIA agent for political reasons. And it wasn’t even an election year!
It’s not like Wilson put their war in jeopardy, he didn’t speak out until it was well underway.
They could have sucked it up and waited for it to blow over.
Naming Plame was just pure spite, that’s all. It really wasn’t necessary.
Jon H
“And, Jon H, she could do the same to her husband Joe Wilson, which is why he went scampering off to Niger as soon as she asked him. Can you say “whipped”?”
Or maybe he was just eager to serve his country.
John S.
According to conservatives, yes on both counts. A President was impeached for the first time in the modern era. Which proves my original point: Starr knew he had enough to work with to make some of the shit he threw stick to a wall.
I have no doubt Fitzgerald thinks some of his shit will stick, too.
DougJ
“Or maybe he was just eager to serve his country.”
Or serve the Democratic party by going on a boondoggle to undermine the president’s case for war.
Stormy70
I meant gnash my teeth at the stupidty of someone blowing a real spy’s cover. If someone is convicted of a crime, then burn that someone. However, I am on record as saying the Wilsons are partisan hacks and liars. Plus, what kind of stellar spy (with babies) lets her husband leak info to the NYT, and expect to stay covert. What kind of stellar spy works at the CIA headquarters, and walks in through the front door. What kind of stellar spy sends a total grandstanding, blow-dried, media whore of a washed up husband to inquire about uranium over a tea set? What kind of stellar spy parties it up in DC of all places? Please. The media is also in it up to their eyeballs, and I do not trust them. Nope, sorry, but they hate this Administration because it makes them look like the idiots they are. Russert, Matthews, Mitchell all need to come clean, and quit acting like they are objective journalists. I see through their BS.
I already need the scotch.
pmm
John S. As one of those people who was so convinced that Clinton had to go, I’d say you’re answer is spot on. I remember sitting there pretending that the polls were lying, and that this time we were finally gonna get ’em. I still think Pres. Clinton did some reaaal sketchy stuff, but I can’t say being a Clinton-Hater was particularly smart.
DougJ
Russert, Matthews, and Mitchell all may as well be on the Democratic payroll. It’s a disgrace.
Sojourner
A CIA operative was outed. A crime was committed. The only issue is whether they can prove who did it.
But the Bush heads will continue to claim that she was not a “real” operative. Say what you want. I’ll take the word of those who have been there – her fellow CIA agents. They use the word “treason.” But we already know the Bush heads put party ahead of country so these little details don’t matter.
Starr had a Republican House of Reps. Sadly, the current Repubs don’t have enough spine or ethics to go after this president and his goons even if he were caught red-handed.
Sojourner
Great. Don’t like an operative’s politics or her husband’s – go ahead and out her. And ignore the fact that Wilson served the Bush 1 administration. But that doesn’t matter. He had the gall to challenge your beloved King George. How shocking! How terrible! Screw the country! Get the bastard and his wife. Nothing could be more important than protecting the king’s reputation.
Yeh, go have that scotch. It won’t affect your reasoning much.
pmm
John S.
Regarding the Starr inquiry, perhaps I should clarify, as I don’t think I was particularly clear: my question was whether time and money spent alone meant he had something. My point is that an ongoing investigation alone isn’t sufficient proof that a crime had to be committed, we have to wait for the indictments or whatnot. Sorry for not being clear.
pmm
John H.
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the motivations regarding the Plame leak. My point in the previous post was that we have to balance the leaking of classified information versus the benefit.
His op/ed marked the entrance of the “Bush Lied” meme into the mainstream, and they damaged our foreign policy as well. Accusing an administration of intentionally lying to the American people and our allies to wage war is not just “political embarrassment”. As his charges relied on his credibility, the administration went after his credibility.
Does this mean that the administration was right to do so? No, not necessarily! I’m merely pointing out that people of good conscience could justify the leak using the same sort of motivation that drives and excuses other leaks of classified information. Which brings us back to why it’s important to determine if a crime has been committed.
John S.
Pmm-
Thank you for the clarification. I think more or less we are on the same page. The bottom line is that we do not have nearly enough information to make a reasonable determination about any sort of criminal guilt.
I think what Rove did was ethically challenged, and that is a different matter altogether. The White House already lied two years ago when they said he had nothing to do with this case (which clearly he does, whether it is criminal or not), and their stonewalling and backtracking over their own comments is appalling to watch.
But I prefer to err on the side of reason and wait to see what the final verdict will be.
Tim F
It says much that you still believe that the administration told us the unvarnished truth. Tell me, if you came to believe that they continued to push evidence that they knew to be faulty, or wrong, in pursuit of a war that was to them a foregone conclusion, would you continue to support them?
Tim F
This is also intellectually dishonest. The press got the impression that the Vice President’s office directly requested Wilson’s trip, when in fact the VP’s office asked the CIA to check up on the Niger story and the CIA independently decided to dispatch a former ambassador to Niger.
If the goal of the administration is to clarify that error, tell me exactly how it is necessary to say precisely who at CIA recommended Wilson’s name. The press believed that Cheney sent him, it should be enough to point out that in fact teh CIA sent him independently. Considering the drawbacks of blowing a covert agent and everybody connected to her former front company, it seems pointlessly spiteful to include the tidbit that the recommending agent was Joe Wilson’s wife. Exactly the sort of spite that colors every post by Rove defenders like Stormy and Doug.
pmm
Tim F:
As I’ve mentioned in a previous thread, I deployed in support of OIF I in February of 2003, and participated in the invasion & occupation. I’m going back on my second deployment to Iraq fairly soon. During the initial invasion, we certainly believed in the threat of WMD, and reacted accordingly. Obviously our concerns weren’t borne out by subsequent events. The big difference (which I suppose is the dividing line between Bush supporters and opponents these days) is whether they were sincerely wrong or lying. Obviously I think they were sincerely wrong.
If they had lied, would I still support the invasion? Honestly, I’d say yes. We could go back and forth for the intellectual justifications and criticisms of the invasion, but I’ve got personal experiences from Iraq that justify it to me. I’d feel like I was playing some emotional “You weren’t there, man” card if I went into detail, so please forgive me for not detailing them here. I think the liberation of Iraq was in our national interests, and I’m not particularly worried about how we got here.
pmm
Tim F. wrote:
That’ s a good question. I think if you’re going to leak classified information, you might as well link the stuff that refutes Amb. Wilson factually. It’s my WAG that the Plame information was put out without them realizing the security ramifications. They were also having to deal with a lot of information that can be argued was erroneous (I’m still trying to avoid that never ending debate!)
That Plame recommended her husband for what she thought was a B.S. mission, and the CIA took her up on it reflects poorly on the decision-making process of those immediately involved in the mission. It rather dramatically refutes the implication that VP Cheney asked for Wilson to go and then refute it with a story of nepotism. I think there was a level of vindictiveness there, but it wasn’t wholly unwarranted. Still, it’s a good question, I need to give it more thought.
Mike S
I’ve always had a hard time saying straight out that they lied, unless it’s out of frustration or short hand for my larger point. I believe that they did turn a blind eye to anything that was contrary to their desired outcome and in some instances mislead us on their importance and/or possible alternate meanings. I’ve pretty much figured that they were so absolutely sure that there were WMD’s that no matter what they did they would find some and be able to say “see, told ya.” They felt they were justified in fudging, misleading and denying because the ends would justify the means. Which leads me to this.
I find those parts disturbing. Not your feelings about the mission itself, I find that admirable, but your belief that it doesn’t matter how we got there. I think it sets a terrible precedent. I think that if we don’t hold our leaders accountable for nefarious actions then we set our selves up for more of the same, and while we disagree on this war I think we can both agree that someone down the road could get us into a conflict of far greater consequence.
So far we have lost at least 1774 soldiers, hundreds of billions of dollars and countless ruined lives. While you may find the war worth those costs many do not, including families of your fellow soldiers who will never see them again.
Again, I’m not questioning your feelings on the mission itself. I think my friend was there around the same time as you, Navy serving with Marines from San Diego, and he too had noble stories to tell. But he’s also got a little girl and another on the way and the thought of him going back infuriates me.
Your thought that the reasons we got there don’t matter disturbs me because I think war should always be the option of last resort. That, imo, was not the case in this one and allowing them to get away with that would be a grave mistake.
Tim F
That is a brave answer, and honest. Like with any good question the response raises more intriguing questions than it answers, but your purpose in life isn’t to answer my questions. I’m content to pour a glass of Shiraz and call it a night.
Halffasthero
I did not agree with the rest of the post but I do see some common ground here. It’s Friday, I am home now after a lousy day of work. It’s Johnny Walker Red time (no Pinch left, sorry).
Sojourner
It’s not at all obvious to me what value to national security was gained by trying to cover up Bush administration errors/lies (pick one) concerning the war. Avoiding presidential embarassment is not enough compensation for the damage that was done to national security and the terrible precedent it set. It is naive to believe that undermining Wilson and Plame would have prevented the truth of the situation from eventually rising to public awareness. Even if it had, I don’t believe that hiding the truth from the American people is good for the country.
Stormy70
It’s time to kick up the feet and vegg out, good night.
Bob
Okay, we’ve seen Toensing and Mehlman saying that everyone knew who Plame was before her identity was leaked. How many of them knew Plame’s identity? Is anyone who knew her as a NOC going to come forward at the trial to bail out this administration?
DougJ, “everyone knew” means that “no one knew” unless your mealy-mouthed pundits step up and start giving names of those in the know.
Rusty Shackleford
Here are the links to the transcripts of the Congressional Hearing – Former Intelligence Officials Testify About Damage Caused by Outing of Covert CIA Agent
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=898&Issue=Disclosure+of+CIA+Agent+Identity
If after reading the comments by the Retired CIA Agents you still feel that it’s “patriotic” to defend Bush and “all of his men” – well, nothing will get through to you.
DougJ
“If after reading the comments by the Retired CIA Agents you still feel that it’s “patriotic” to defend Bush and “all of his men” – well, nothing will get through to you.”
If you don’t understand that WE’RE AT WAR and that now is not the time to be trying to take down one of the president’s most TRUSTED LIEUTENANTS, then nothing will get through to you.
Rusty Shackleford
James Marcinkowski – CIA (Retired)
Those who would advocate the “I’m ok, you’re ok” politics of nonresponsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don’t care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.
There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.
Hey DougJ, do you know the easiest way to identify an idiot? He’s the guy who doesn’t know when to shut up.
You are doing your little part to hurt Americans.
Rusty Shackleford
Larry Johnson – CIA (Retired)
As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting. To those such as Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, P. J. O’Rourke, and Representative Roy Blunt I can only say one thing—you are wrong. I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation. Robert Novak’s compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her “cover” company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.
Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President’s request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division.
The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as “proof” that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband’s qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O’Reilly continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie’s boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband’s qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.
The decision to send Joe Wilson on the mission to Niger was made by Valerie’s bosses. She did not have the authority to sign travel vouchers, issue travel orders, or expend one dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars on her own. Yet, she has been singled out by the Republican National Committee and its partisans as a legitimate target of attack. It was Karl Rove who told Chris Matthews, “Wilson’s wife is fair game”.
What makes the unjustified and inappropriate attacks on Valerie Plame and her reputation so unfair is that there was no Administration policy position stipulating that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in February 2002. That issue was still up in the air and, as noted by SSCI, Vice President Cheney himself asked for more information.
At the end of the day we are left with these facts. We went to war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam was reacquiring weapons of mass destruction. Joe Wilson was sent on a mission to Niger in response to a request initiated by the Vice President. Joe Wilson supplied information to the CIA that supported other reports debunking the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. When Joe went public with his information, which had been corroborated by the CIA in April 2003, the response from the White House was to call him a liar and spread the name of his wife around.
We sit here more than two years later and the storm of invective and smear against Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie, continues. I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of “is” was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington.
So where are we? The President has flip flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.
Without firm action by President Bush to return to those principles he promised to follow when he came to Washington, I fear our political debate in this country will degenerate into an argument about what the meaning of “leak” is. We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot expend its efforts attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.
DougJ
“Hey DougJ, do you know the easiest way to identify an idiot? He’s the guy who doesn’t know when to shut up.”
Sounds like Howard Dean to me.
Freedom is on the march.
John S.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
I agree with Theodore Roosevelt on this one. Crack open a history book sometime, and you’ll see that being at war doesn’t give a President (or his “lieutenants”) the freedom to do whatever they want without accountability.
You must have America confused with some other country.
John S.
Doug-
Wow, Theodore Roosevelt thinks you’re unpatriotic, too.
Sojourner
Uh, Doug, if Rove outed Plame, he undermined national security for nothing more than political gain. It makes absolutely no sense to keep an unpatriotic person like that in a position where he could do further damage, especially during war time.
pmm
Mike S & Tim F: I’d like to expand my thoughts and hope to answer your questions, but unfortunately my day spent blathering on this thread means that I’ve got quite a bit of real-world work to do. I hope to address your concerns in the near future, as you continue to raise good points.
Warmest Regards,
PMM