I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."
On July 14, 2003, Novak wrote a column in which he identified Valerie Plame as a key official in the decision to send her husband to Niger to check out reports that Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to obtain yellowcake, uranium ore, from the country.
Novak identified Plame as a "CIA operative" and accusation began almst immediately that she was a covert operative whose real identity was protected by federal law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Whomever revealed her identity would have violated that Act.
But Novak says today that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned who Novak's sources were independently of Novak.For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
It was far from certain even three years ago that Plame was covered by the IIPA. Novak concludes, as he said, that the law was not violated when Novak's sources revealed her name and CIA employment to him.
First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret. ... It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.
But today is the first time that Novak says he actually learned Ms. Plame was also Mrs. Wilson by reading the "Who's Who" entry for the mister. I observed at that time that,
... the first question (and until it is answered, the only question) to be addressed by the just-begun DOJ investigation is simple: Did Valerie Plame's CIA employment status fall under the provision of US Code: Title 50: Section 421, "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources"? The kind of intelligence-related employment or affiliation protected by the code is that of "covert agent," not "operative" or "employee."
According to Novak, Patrick Fitzgerald has concluded that the law was not violated and that whatever Valerie Plame's CIA status was, she was not a covert agent. My prediction in October 2003 was this:
Plame's status will be shown not be have been protected by the law, but someone will be fired anyway, just because the Washington culture of punishment of the innocent demands it.
Well, I followed up in October 2005 that I wasn't so sure anyone would be fired. I claim a clear crystal ball all around:
1. The odds of anyone being indicted for violating the IIPA must now be admitted to be slim and none, and slim's out of town.
2. Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was indicted by Fitzgerald, but not for anything related to Plame's name appearing in public media; he took a fall for perjury to the grand jury (for which I predict he will be found not guilty if it ever goes to trial). He wasn't fired, he resigned, though of course he would have been fired if he had not resigned. But again, he didn't resign for indictment for outing Plame.
Bob Novak still has not revealed the identity of his "primary source," though Fitzgerald has known it all along. Novak says he won't reveal the name without the source's permission.
So where are we left at the end of two and one-half years and millions of dollars of public money spent on digging an empty legal well? Right where Novak started off:I considered [Joe Wilson's] wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
And that's pretty much it. I just can't wait to see how the KosKidz and DU will scream bloody murder when they finally figure out that neither Karl Rove, Dick Cheney nor anyone else will be indicted. For anything.
I'm a little confused. Joe Wilson's Who's Who entry said "Wife: Valerie Plame, secret CIA agent"?
It wasn't secret that Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame! What was secret was her employment. So someone who told Bob Novak, "I don't remember the name of Joe Wilson's wife, but she's CIA" is supplying the missing link. I can't figure out if the idea is that our CIA agents can't get married or have to spend their entire lives under fake names—something that probably makes them easier to spot for counterintelligence agencies. Whatever, there's some undeclared axiom missing from the argument for it to make any sense at all.
I'm a little disappointed that Rove won't be indicted, but we got Libby, and that acquittal you mentioned isn't real likely. (On the other hand, if it's OK with you, Novak's retelling of what Fitzgerald believes doesn't count for much with me.) Now, a last-minute pardon, that I could believe.
So the entire investigation was a waste of time and money (basically the reverse Star investigation, except that one actually had real criminal misconduct).
I wonder how many millions were wasted on an investigation, of which, the answer to the questions about Plame were probably known at the start.
She wasn't a NOC at the time of her "outing", her cover was most likley blown by Aldric Ames or when she listed Brewster Jennings as her place of employement on her campaign finance forms, and we must surmize that she had to OK Joe's inclusion of her name in the Who's who (what kind of NOC would allow that to happen?).
What isn't being paid attention to is the multiple confirmations that Joe Wilson lied through his teeth in his NYTimes coming out party. Novak confirms what the Congressional panel did in its report, that his wife got him the Niger gig, of which he still to this day denies.
The only scandal here is that this entire debacle became newsworthy. Oh yeah, Merry Fitzmas /sarcasm
CIA agents can get married. But they and their spouses should not attract attention to themselves. And they certainly shouldn't expect that they will be able to play politics using their classified status as a shield against clearing up misinformation.
And I think an acquittal of Libby is highly likely if the case goes forward, as the case depends on the testimony and notes of impeachable witnesses.
CIA agents can get married. But they and their spouses should not attract attention to themselves. And they certainly shouldn't expect that they will be able to play politics using their classified status as a shield against clearing up misinformation.
Warning: Don't cross the Elephant, or else.
I remain bewildered by comment #2, that an NOC shouldn't have her name in Who's Who. Why the hell not? (For one thing, marriages are a matter of public record.) Should she also have deleted her name from major university alumni records? Withdrawn from professional societies. Excuse me, I would think that the more well-known a deep-cover agent was, the more useful she might be.
There's also something sick juxtaposing this thread with the sanctimonious declaration that Joe Lieberman opponents put party above country. Explain to me: how was the national interest served by outing a covert (formerly covert, for the sake of argument, if you insist) agent? I'll tell you: it didn't serve the national interest, but it served the interest of the Bush Administration, because they were afraid that once people came to realize that Emperor Bush was not omniscient, the whole edifice of lies would come tumbling down. And then they might stop supporting Bush's hopeless bungling any more. And in your eyes, keeping the President as the image of perfection is the national interest.
She also worked out of Langley and drew her check from there. It didnt exactly take the KGB to run this one down.
AJL
Setting up a strawman question then answering it may be emotionally satisfying for you but your little exercise has nothing to do with reality.
The administration outed noone, did not conspire to out anyone, did not instruct anyone to out anyone. It took three years of investigation and a million dollars to find no evidence.
What a waste! But what a ride!
She also worked out of Langley and drew her check from there. It didnt exactly take the KGB to run this one down.
The administration outed noone, did not conspire to out anyone, did not instruct anyone to out anyone. It took three years of investigation and a million dollars to find no evidence.
What a waste! But what a ride!
Remember, you citizens: if it offends this Administration, it can't be treason. If it cripples our national attempt at surveilling a rogue state like Iran, well, these things are a necessary sacrifice for the greater good of The President's Party.
And if it doesn't result in impeachment hearings for a stained blue dress? Well, then, clearly: a waste of millions! (Even if it hasn't actually cost a million yet.)
Congratulations. This is the greatest moral victory for your side since you "got" Paula Jones and Linda Tripp.
Way to engage the point Stickler. Any more nonsequitars you want to throw in? Isnt there an Iran-Contra jab to be made?
(1)Unknown.
(2)Karl Rove.
(3)Bill Harlow, who seems pretty cheesed at Novak.
So let's compare and contrast:
So, cover girl Valerie Plame is inadvertently outed when she (a) pushes her publicity hound husband for a junket to Nigeria and (b) said publicity hound starts spinning contradictory tales to anyone who will menion the name "Joe Wilson" in the first paragraph of a story or pay a nice honorarium for a speaking/endorsement deal. This is a threat to the fabric of the republic.
In an unrelated anti-Administration action by elements within the CIA, a valuable data mining operation focusing on overseas financial transactions is blown. This is GOOD for the fabric of the republic.
In both cases, our Progressive brethern are blessing the actions of unelected bureaucrats (in the CIA, no less) in undermining elected officials.
What's wrong with this picture?
More than anyone else, Tom Maguire has been following the twists and turns of Plamegate from the onset. His methodology has been to fastidiously examine open-source documents, linking to often-obscure court filings and transcripts of TV appearances. He has a very active coterie of regular commenters who add things to the mix. Army of Davids and all. He's also cultivated the good habit of linking regularly to thoughtful bloggers who disagree with his conclusions.
At Just One Minute, Maguire's first post on Novak's column is now up. If he runs true to form, there will be others, and it will be worth checking back.
David Fleck #10:
You offer a good summary of Novak's column, which is now online. Some time ago, combining Holmesian detecting and a process of elimination, Maguire and his readers identified former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as the likely primary leaker, with the role of (1) unknown in your scenario.
Mark Poling (#11):
There are people who are primarily interested in developing Talking Points for Their Side, which is the Correct Side with All The Good Arguments. (Characterizing the merits of The Other Side's Arguments thus doesn't involve a lot of mental strain.)
Other folks try to start from the bottom, to become familiar with the established and tentative facts of a given case, with emphasis on how assertions and predictions look when "ground truth" checks become available.
The problem of the second approach is that it takes a lot of time and effort to sort through contradictory accounts and interpretations. Often, I end up at, "I just don't know."
However, its benefit is that it offers the opportunity to discover that one's inital take on a case might turn out to be wrong, in part or wholly. One might, gak, end up supporting an Argument of the Other Side.
Obviously: substitute the words "even worse problem" for "benefit" in the above paragraph for members of the Talking Points Club.
It need hardly be said that participants at Winds are mixed nuts in this regard. Not a Left/Right thing, either--that runs "orthoganally" to this characterization.
"In both cases, our Progressive brethern are blessing the actions of unelected bureaucrats (in the CIA, no less) in undermining elected officials.
What's wrong with this picture?"
At least they are consistant. Consistantly against democratically elected leadership and pro unelected 3rd parties trying to warp national policy to their own ends.
It is an excellent point though. Plame can be framed as a matter of principle, I suppose, but as far as the big picture it is flat out demagogery to suggest the story had the remotest impact on national security or even her safety. Yet this is being sold as the greatest betrayal of the Republic since Benedict Arnold.
On the other hand the NYT has basically stated it has a policy to publish any secret information that any unhappy bureaucrat sees fit to hand them no matter if there is an allegation of wrongdoing or not. Some Pentagon malcontent doesnt like the the new fire control circuits in the new Joint Strike Fighter? Put the specs on the front page! Its all in the public interest after all. And that is just good journalism, right?
I'm singularly unimpressed with Fitzgerald's investigation of political crimes. From both sides of the aisle.
In Illinois, Fitzgerald has reported that he has a number of credible witnesses to "very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" in multiple state agencies under the Democratic governor. That governor is seeking reelection in November under a cloud, deserved or not. And the investigation appears to be expanding into the area of concealing the crime, leading one to wonder whether the governor's people committed any crime or whether they have simply been too zealous in making the Governor look good.
I see a lot of parallels with the Plame investigation, but ironically AP asserts that "Novak's secret coopration with the prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role . . . had the effect of providing protection to the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign." No, the appointment of an independent prosecutor had the effect of removing the story from the political arena.
I still think the public is the first and best judge of political crimes. Prosecutors need to keep that in mind.
Pretty soon people who insist that Valeria Plame was a covert agent (she wasn’t according to statute which is drafted the way it was a for a reason) or that someone from the administration “outed” her to “get Joe Wilson” are going to sound like the people who claim that our government took down the Twin Towers on 9/11.
AMAC mentions that Tom Maguire believes Armitage is probably the "unknown source." From what I've read, he pieced this all togethter from a close examination of small details made public, including, as I recall, the fact that he was about the only person in Washington that didn't deny that he was Woodward's source.
But in DC, its apparantly been the subject of knowing gossip for some time. Example here. And yet night after night Rove as Novak's source was an open source of speculation while most people still don't know who Armitage is.
Rove is fair game, after all.
AJL wonders:
how was the national interest served by outing a covert (formerly covert, for the sake of argument, if you insist) agent?
Simple. The people had a right to know how a lying, anti-Bush publicity hound got an important CIA mission instead of a real professional. The answer was nepotism. I don't see how that answer could have been delivered to the public witout revealing Plame's employment, but maybe you could suggest something, Andrew?
For people who complain about "crony capitalism," the Dems seem awfully tolerant of "crony intelligence."
Now, I suppose you could argue that Wilson was a real professional but that argument won't have a ton of traction after what the Select committee had to say about him.
One very good thing has come of all this.
The Dems complaints will be damped when GWB goes after leakers of real secrets.
"Remember the Plame" will become a Republican rallying cry.
LOL
Anyone for a trip down Memory Lane? In a year-old Winds post, The Two Best Things To Do With Cake, I typed in some interesting bits from the 3/23/05 amicus brief filed in the Cooper/Miller subpoena case by 36 news organizations (the brief was a scanned PDF; its link has now rotted and it's pretty much Down the Memory Hole).
According to the Wayback Machine, here's what the sachems of the media told the Court. Their bullet points, their bolding:
There's more at the linked post. In light of what's transpired since then, including today's Novak column, I'd say the Mainstream Media pretty much hit the nail on the head on this one.
Confused? Y'mean that's not exactly what you recall seeing in the Press (Tribune Co., ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, NBC News, Newsweek, Reuters)?
Funny, that.
At least the signers of the affidavit aren't in the awkward position of being for pressuring recalcitrant journalists with jail time (Miller/Plamegate) before they were against it (Lichtblau/Swift).
I remain amazed at the thought that allowing Valerie Plame to make political contributions is considered somehow improper given her NOC status (#20). I would think that NOCs would try to live as normal a life as possible, which would include political contributions. You guys seem to think NOCs should live as inconspicuous a life as possible, which doesn't strike me as likely to make for an effective spy. It might, however, coincide with the dreams of pre-teen hairy-palmed boys about what sort of spy they would make.
Rob Lyman (#18) and I essentially agree, except we assign different moral values to the act. Preservation of the fiction that Bush is omniscient takes precedence over all. Joe Wilson had committed lese majeste. As far as "lying", did we ever find any evidence in Iraq of Nigerien yellowcake? Oh, but we did find a rusted-out container of Sarin.
And Gabriel Chapman (#2) talks of a reverse Starr investigation. Let's see. Starr: perjury about a blowjob. Fitzgerald: perjury about a leak outing a covert agent. The former underlying act clearly wasn't criminal activity and hadn't even taken place when the inquisition began. But at least Starr covered up the murder of Vincent Foster.
The point about the campaign contributions that is important to note, is that she listed Brewster Jennings as her place of employment. Lets say your joe spy, and you're reading the NYTimes and Joe Ambassador publishes a snarky little diatribe about his trip to Niger, so you google his info, and lo and behold you read his whos who listing to see that he has a wife named Valarie Plame, being the enterprising spook, you google her and find out that she works for Brewster Jennings, curious about the place of employment you google it only to find out it has an offices in a building, but yet occupies no space. This being Washington, and you being a spook, you put two and two together and bing! shes a spook too. This line of logic isn't hard to follow, and it appears that Novak took a similar path to find this information as well. SO in essence, Valarie Plame outed herself by being sloppy. Then of course theres her post "outing" coming out party in Vanity Fair, and the various book signings, etc.
She wasn't a covert agent, at least not at the time of her "outing".
Star's investigation was far more reaching than a blowjob. Yet the left continues to paint it as such.
Fitzgeralds investigation will yield zero convictions. Furthermore, its sole indictment appears to have nothing to do with the initial charges leveled.
And still of course, everyone continue to skirt the bigger issue of Joe Wilson lying through his teeth. The "politics of truth" indeed.
AJL,
Snark at other people all you want, but I have been taking your comments here and elsewhere seriously for years so you could return the favor and avoid the nonsense about lese majeste.
The real issue is not who was right about yellowcake (although it was Bush: he said Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake, and apparently Wilson confirmed that, at least if you think the Select Committee is trustworthy).
The real issue is: why did the CIA send an unprofessional clown to Niger? Why didn't they send a genuine intelligence agent who, if nothing else, knew better than to publish op-eds in the NYT? Americans deserve to know why their clandestine service picks losers like this for critical missions. The answer in this case is family ties.
I agree with you, though, that NOCs should be allowed (but not required) to be listed in Who's Who, make campaign contributions, etc. We want them to seem as ordinary as possible. What they should NOT be allowed to do--and what should probably be a firing offense for NOCs--is use their connections to get family members important and sensitive jobs with the CIA. Especially if those family members are roughly as discreet as Paris Hilton.
One of my favorite memories from Kerry's campaign was the Amazing Disappearing Joe Wilson Page on Kerry's website. If I recall correctly, it happened on the day the text of his official report on his Niger trip was released to the press, and the glaring inconsistencies with his later "politics of truth" efforts.
File under: "With friends like these",
Andrew Lazarus (#21):
I did a search of the Winds archives for pre-teen hairy-palmed boys, but didn't come up with much. I'm sure this has something to do with comment #20--but I'm not quite sure what.
To recap, #20 recalled seven points made by 36 media companies in opposing Fitzgerald's (successful) efforts to have Miller found in contempt. You object to #7? Fine, but you could lose the you guys. That, is not my dog.
Focus. Focus.
Very weird, AMac, I thought about refering to Joe Wilson as the Inspector Clouseau of our times.
Harmonic convergence or something....
You guys are assuming either Wilson, Plame, or the CIA clique who sent him expected Wilson to do a serious, much less thorough, investigation. The evidence points to the conclusion that the people who selected and sent Wilson knew the answer they wanted and that is why the chose who they did and allowed him to publish his accounts (that in itself says enough, how often does the CIA 'forget' to tell its operatives not to publish their conclusions in the national media?) Dont chalk up to stupidity that which is plainly malice. There is an element of the CIA bureaucracy that has been working actively on its own agenda and against the Bush administration since at least 911.
The real issue is: why did the CIA send an unprofessional clown to Niger?
A good question, but I think it should be pointed out that it was a joint CIA / State Dept. (INR) trip. INR thought the trip would not be worth while, so Wilson would not be a threatening choice. Plame may have proposed the Ambassador, believing that State would like one of their own.
But why did the CIA want the clown if it thought the Niger angle was worth investigating? I think the answer has to be that the CIA did not have its own intelligence options for Niger. It wanted to use the embassy, but didn't trust the embassy to feed Foggy Bottom what it wanted to hear. At least Wilson had some independence and did anyone mention that his wife was CIA?
Well this whole episode just exposes State/CIA as the rotten agencies they have become. I'm pretty sure the Joker's quote: "This town needs an emema", was refering to Washington DC.
I know people like to harp on all forms of government agencies that need overhauls, but State and CIA are the two that actually do more harm than good, and seem to have lost their way when it comes to what role they play. They exist to server the Executive branch. One of the reasons you have so many leaks is that the old guard of State/CIA don't like the Bush admin ignoring their "expert" opinions, as they appear to have done in some instances. Thus, pushback.
I personally don't think the CIA sent Wilson because of a lack of seriousness. Here's the official narrative from the Senate Intelligence Report (via Tom Maguire)
From this I think State (INR) was not interested in anybody going to Niger because it didn't fit within a preconceived world view that the existing international framework was sufficient to restrain Saddam.
I think CIA's problem is different. They were in a position in 2002 where Joseph Wilson was deemed to be the best option, even while recognizing that it was unlikely that someone would confess to Wilson that they were selling uranium to the U.S.
This could all be disinformation to let al-Qaeda think we don't have intelligence assets in Niger, but I kind of think we don't have intelligence assets in Niger and probably a number of other African countries.
"Whomever revealed her identity would have violated that Act." Should have been "whoever". Donald Sensing needs an English usage dictionary. "Whomever revealed", "degenerate Israel's position" - he can't speak English, yet he writes. Go fugure.
Go fugure
You can't spell; yet you still throw rocks from glass houses.
"AttentionPlease" (#31)
Tu quoque. Or are you going to claim that you were engaging in some sort of sophisticated wordplay?
Me, I realized some time ago that this medium makes it hard to do perfect final drafts, and accomodated that fact in my jugments of writers.
WoC invites criticism of substance. Can you do better? Let's see.
And yes, "jugments" was a typo. Sue me.
Forecast: The left, having gone from the high hopes of Fitzmas to the forelorn hope of a double-super-secret Cheney indictment, will soon turn to screeching vilification of Fitz as a part of the BushRovian conspiracy.
So does this mean we can officialy ignore anything printed at Truthout?
This just keeps getting better: Wilson/Plame have filed suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby. Are they really this stupid?
In Joe's nightmare, the Voice of God comes down and says "Mr. Wilson, your 15 minutes are up."
Of course he's that stupid. What I can't quite get is how Plame could be that stupid.
I guess the speaking engagements must have been drying up.....
Objection denied. A typo signifies nothing, while a usage error is a clear sign of illiteracy. Look at the poster going by the name "Armed Liberal", he never makes any errors -- so it's possible, eh?
Personally, I from now on refuse to read anything indited by Donald Sensing. A good thinker cannot be a bad writer!
I was going to point out earlier Wilson's promise to sue once Fitzgerald wrapped up. As in, "I guess Wilson won't be suing after all."
There's a sucker born every minute. Tom Maguire solicited legal opinions on a civil lawsuit a few weeks ago, and I think the consensus was no chance in Hell.
Browsing through Wilson's complaint, I see no allegation that Plame's status was protected under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, it alleges that her status was "classified and not publicly known." That recalls Fitzgerald's milktoast complaint, perhaps word for word. Fitzgerald clearly wanted to avoid that legal issue, and under perjury charges that makes sense. But Wilson is complaining about Plame being outed; surely it will become a central issue if Plame's identity was not protected under a statute intended for that very purpose.
Complaint linked here
Also, its not just Cheney, Rove, and Libby being sued, but also John Does 1 through 10. In other words, Richard Armitage is being sued as a co-conspirator in an attempt to intentionally and maliciously discredit Wilson in the rush to war. Har. Har. Har.
Somebody please reveal in discovery that Colin Powell was involved as one of the Does. I'd like nothing better than a clown vs. Colin deathmatch.
As one of my friends once said: like squashing a bug with a planet.