March 16, 2007

"It was over in an instant. That career path was terminated."

Valerie Plame testifies.

UPDATE: The AP report is rather harsh:
She revealed little new information about the case, which sparked a federal investigation and brought perjury and obstruction of justice convictions of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. No one has been charged with leaking her identity.

Still, Plame's appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was a moment of political theater that dramatized Democrats' drive to use their control of Congress to expose what they see as White House efforts to intimidate dissenters....

News cameras whirred and spectators craned their necks to catch a glimpse of Plame as the blond former operative took her place alone at the witness table for her 90 minutes of testimony.
The one significant thing seems to be this:
Plame said she did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson later wrote in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
That's a conflict to be resolved. Is it anything or do the words "recommend" and "suggest" have some subtle meaning that will be revealed later, erasing the conflict? That's just mystifying.

134 comments:

Revenant said...

It was over in an instant. That career path was terminated.

And the irony is that it never would have been if she'd recommended a qualified candidate instead of the guy she shared a bed with.

Naked Lunch said...

And the irony is that it never would have been if she'd recommended a qualified candidate instead of the guy she shared a bed with.

She just testified under oath that she didn't.

MadisonMan said...

if she'd recommended a qualified candidate instead of the guy she shared a bed with.

Well, according to her testimony, she didn't. I know, I know, everyone will say she's lying, but where is the proof of that? The source of the story that she recommended her husband came from the White House, didn't it? There is ample proof that information from the WH is not credible.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, we still have to figure out then why the 9/11 commission concluded that she did recommend her husband. Maybe it was the memo she wrote...

But even if she didn't, she still has the problem that her husband knew of her CIA status, and apparently did so even before marriage. And then he went on to lie about his trip to Niger in the NYT. And the logical question was. why was a Clinton/Gore supporter being sent to Niger in the first place? Their contributions to Gore were public record. If the Wilsons had been serious about protecting her identity, her husband wouldn't have so prominently attacked the Administration.

Plame is pretending that she was an innocent victim here. But it was her husband's NYT op-ed that started the ball rolling that resulted in her "outing". If he hadn't written the article, she would not have had been "outed". Simple as that.

Bruce Hayden said...

MadisonMan

Actually, it appears that the source of that story was the State Department. Remember, they made clear that he was CIA, not State here, despite having worked for State. So, apparently, the original outing came State, including notably Armitage, not a fan of the Administrations.

Revenant said...

She just testified under oath that she didn't.

She testified under oath that she didn't recommend him for the yellowcake trip. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she didn't lie.

She did recommend him for an earlier trip to Niger, which is why the CIA decided to re-use him this time around. So my earlier comment that her troubles began when she recommended the unqualified hack she was boinking for a CIA job is accurate.

Simply put, Plame lost that "career path" because she treated it like a typical Washington hand-out opportunity instead of treating it like a matter of national security. So boo fuckity hoo for Ms. Plame; the country's better off without her in that position.

dave™© said...

I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to comment on this story more, being a certified moronic brownshirt fuck and all.

I just think it's funny the number of stories you won't comment on, since they're all stories about how the Bush Administration is full of criminals and corruption.

Oh, well, "American Idol" remains untainted...

MadisonMan said...

bruce, thank you for the reminder (assuming you mean she not he).

revenant, I've never understood the enmity towards Ms. Plame for recommending her husband to do a job she thought he could handle. The ultimate responsibility for hiring Wilson does not rest with the person who makes the recommedation, it's with the people who actually hired him.

And I'll assert, since we don't really know exactly what she did (Well, I don't, I don't have clearance), we can't tell if the country is better off now or not.

hdhouse said...

i have to tell you revenant and bruce hayden, your last comments are about the stupidist if not borderline psychotic posts yet.

1. she didn't recommend him for the trip.
2. she was covert under the definition of executive order
3. she was covert as she had mission(s) overseas in the 5 years that were covert.

wilson didn't lie guys. he said there was no evidence. he also said that the trip was at the behest of cheney...which, in fact, was the source of the request to the CIA for information.

you you stupid farts blame wilson and plame for "getting the ball rolling"...do you also blame women for putting on a nice dress because they are begging to be raped?

honest to god how do you live and function? i just can't fathom how you can get through a day without episodes and major doses of medication.

Fritz said...

This is why Republicans lost power, they don't deserve it. I understand that Waxman did a good job to restrict questioning, but she opened the door on many topics that could have been asked.

Who would have provided the White House or the State Department information pertaining to Joe's trip?

So in effect, the Agency itself brought attention to you. Don't they have some responsibility in protecting your identity?
Had the CIA not mentioned that you happen to be his wife, you would not be sitting here today?

Simply because someone else mentioned Joe's name first, you have just testified that you participated in his acceptance of this assignment.

I will agree that State & the White House were sloppy with revealing your role in his trip, but I have to say, it was an interesting tid bit the Agency passed along. My son's acceptance to Harvard may have been meritorious, but in this town, his uncle sitting on the admissions committee is going to come out.

You have testified that you were aware of the information Joe was passing along to reporters. Don't you think this highly charged information would bring attention to Joe, and that as did happen, drew attention to you? Didn't you have an obligation to protect your identity as well?

You just testified that you consider it vital to keep politics out of intelligence. Don't you think that it is important for the sake of transparency, a known public critic of the Bush Administration, is the last person that should be sent on it's behalf?

Speaking of politics and intelligence, had the agency sent you to Niger instead of Joe, would you have been at liberty to talk to reporters as Joe did? Did it ever occur to you, that while Joe's trip may not have been classified, he should have followed protocols that would be required of you.

Cedarford said...

Yeah, sure there was no nepotism, involved, Valerie. So if not youm who did recommend a washed-up Democratic hack associated with John Kerry for a job he wasn't qualified to do? The White House? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Hastert?

No, it was in your circle - part of a bureaucratic war the CIA waged.

And if Armitage had not "outed" your 9 to 5 working housewife analyst job....what do you think the press would have done about the "mysterious sponsor" behind Jow Wilsons inexplicable African trip and his use of it to politicize the CIA and use his trip and "connections at the CIA" to launch a global partisan attack on the Bushies?
Would the press just let it pass as your preening fool of a husband kept it up, hinted on TV shows that a mysterious "Agent X" put him in position to attack the Bushies? And lie about his trip?

And no one would have corrected the idiot or investigated who was using the CIA as a weapon, a tool for a partisan like Wilson to use?

No, Mrs Plame, your cover was blown the day your husband blared his story in every global capital of the world through his NYTimes op-ed and all the TV shows he did. That you and a faction of your peers enabled him was bound to be discovered. It was just a matter of time.

It is a good thing for you that the Left and the MSM hate the war so much, they are compelled to love you and your famous, though slightly mistruthful, crusader of a husband. Otherwise, they would note the last person accused of politicizing the CIA as a weapon against their oponents was Richard Nixon.

But as time goes by, you will join Nixon on a list of those who damaged the agency and nationl security by perverting it's mission to partisan politics, which includes Lefty Philip Agee. In NIxon's case, he used Presidential power to abuse the CIA. You used sleazy nepotism.

No matter.

The passions of Iraq will fade and all the damage leftists have tried to do to the CIA and national security will be objectively examined. History will ensure that Valerie Plame will join Nixon and the traitor Agee on a select list. And you husband won't even merit that much - just another self-promoting liar caught in the act.

Enjoy you book rights and movie millions in the meantime, Valerie. You are a Lefty hero.

Fritz said...

hdhouse wrote:1. she didn't recommend him for the trip.
2. she was covert under the definition of executive order
3. she was covert as she had mission(s) overseas in the 5 years that were covert.


1) Ok, she didn't recommend him, but she did participate. The CIA passed the information that she had. The Administration didn't make her up.

2) Ok, she was covert. What was she doing, hanging around newspaper reporters with Joe? Why would she allow her husband to draw attention to him, thus risking herself? She claims she wanted to be eligible for future overseas assignments, then why would she be in public with a US government official named Joe Wilson? Does anyone really believe that foreign agents would ignore that fact?

Freder Frederson said...

So my earlier comment that her troubles began when she recommended the unqualified hack

On what basis are you calling Joseph Wilson an "unqualified hack." Is it because of his long diplomatic career in Africa and the middle east. Or maybe because when he was the highest ranking diplomat left in the American Embassy in the runup to the first Gulf War and Saddam threatened to execute anyone sheltering U.S. citizens, Wilson, who was sheltering over a hundred U.S. citizens in the U.S. embassy and homes of diplomats, appeared before a Washington Post reporter with a noose around his neck and a message for Saddam: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own fucking rope."

Freder Frederson said...

But as time goes by, you will join Nixon on a list of those who damaged the agency and nationl security by perverting it's mission to partisan politics, which includes Lefty Philip Agee. In NIxon's case, he used Presidential power to abuse the CIA. You used sleazy nepotism.

How can you look at the way the intelligence to justify the war with Iraq was manipulated and make this claim with a straight face?

MadisonMan said...

How can you look at the way the intelligence to justify the war with Iraq was manipulated and make this claim with a straight face?

How do you know he isn't giggling hysterically as he types?

hdhouse said...

ohhh fritz....biting my tongue because i want to call you a damn fool....so let's try some logic on you.

1. since when is a trip to Niger a glory trip?
2. the 911 commission reference pertained to the 1999 trip not the one prior to the 2004 state of the union.
3. wilson didn't lie. cheney's office was provided with a cia document in which wilson's findings were included. that was documented at libby's trial and by testimony by cia briefers.

plame knew fully that every brownshirt would jump on every word she said so don't you think that she would be careful? hello?

then victoria tensing (sp?) gets on and finally has to admit that there is a difference between the executive order definition of classified and violations there and the covert definition she is using covering the criminal law statute.

and i just heard on sean hannity that of course the democrats are going to give Plame a pass for lying under oath when the administration which has just a week's worth of whoppers is to be believed.

you fascist assholes are just too much somedays.

Dewave said...

1. she didn't recommend him for the trip.
2. she was covert under the definition of executive order
3. she was covert as she had mission(s) overseas in the 5 years that were covert.


Not even Fitzgerald believes all this stuff. Or why wasn't someone (Armitage) charged for actually leaking Plame's covert status?

johnstodder said...

If the Wilsons had been serious about protecting her identity, her husband wouldn't have so prominently attacked the Administration.

That is the essence of why I've never fallen for the "exposing Plame's identity was treason" meme. Lots of people are sent off to investigate things for our government. Not all of them view the NY Times op-ed page as the appropriate place to file their report.

I'll give Wilson the massive benefit of the doubt (which the record shows he really doesn't deserve), and acknowledge he felt he had no choice but to publish his piece for the sake of God and country. Such a hero he was.

But he and his wife should have known at that moment that her "covert" career would be over if he acted on this gloriously patriotic impulse, because the publication of a piece challenging the administration's truthfulness would have inevitably brought attention to her.

If we agree on nothing else, we have to agree that Plame's identity as a CIA employee was something any reporter could have easily discovered through an almost infinite number of means.

If Karl Rove had been bitten by a bat that rendered him speechless, if Dick Cheney had forgotten the combination to his undisclosed location and locked himself in for a year, even still, some reporter would have dug up the info on Plame. None of her defenders dispute, for example, that he mentions her employment at CIA in his Who's Who biography, do they?

Throughout mythology, one universal aspect of the hero's journey is sacrifice. In the case of Our Hero Joseph Wilson, his sacrifice was his wife's "covert identity." It's time they quit whining about it.

monkeyboy said...

since when is a trip to Niger a glory trip?

When he was going anyway? I think that was mentioned in the memo she wrote (at the behest of "some guy who walked by her office").

Good way to get the taxpayers to foot your business trip.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here's a link to video of Plame saying under oath before Congress that she was covert.

The proof to me in this was when the CIA recommended a criinal investigation after she was outed. They wouldn't have done that if she was not covert.

They also have confirmation from CIA Director Hayden.

Despite all these facts we will be hearing from the right wing "Plame was not covert." "Everybody in DC knew she was a CIA agent."

There's a danger in living in your own fantasy world.

reality check said...

All you wingnuts (looking at you revenant, hayden, sloanasourus, ann, ....)

Take a deep breath.

Go over today's statement cleared by the CIA that says she was covert and classified and had been overseas.

Accept it.

Then consider other statements that people have been telling you for five years.

Maybe some of what we said was true? Maybe some of the people telling you what you've been repeating is not true?

a) she didn't recommend joe
b) joe was highly qualified as ambassador in the region for many years
c) joe never said that cheney sent him
d) no one on the cocktail circuit knew her identity
e) joe did not out her by writing an article in the paper, he is an ambassador and has written many articles in the paper.
f) libby may not have been the first to out her, but libby and rove's and ari's conversations certainly confirmed her status that would otherwise have gone unconfirmed
g) libby's crime was obstruction of justice, so as Fitzgerald has said, he threw sands in the face of the umpire and so Fitzgerald was not able to go any further.
i) we don't know why fitzgerald did not charge anyone else, because fitzgerald won't say. others speculate it has to proving intent, and just the difficulty in proving the charges in general.
j) armitage came clear immediately as did everyone else involved except for libby.
k) why was libby, who has been described as a fantastic lawyer, why did libby perjure himself?
l) why did libby obstruct justice?
m) why does rove who admitted outing plame, still have a security clearance?
n) how come bush never kept his word and kept rove employed?
o) what are your feelings to the rest of the testimony, namely that Plame was working on WMD issues, namely that outing Plame harmed national security, namely that outing Plame endangered other covert agents?

Take a deep breath, think about how you feel about this country.

It's okay to admit mistakes.

RSwan said...

hdhouse,
Just several things for you to ponder.
1. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, several people under oath disagreed with her memory of how her husband name came up. (Didn't someone just get convicted for that)
2. She was in a classified position according to an executive order. There is apparently a CIA definition of covert(I have seen this disputed) as well as a legal definition. Her "covertness" under the legal definition is iffy at best.
3. Are you talking about the one trip to Jordan, my guess is that trip was classified, otherwise we would not know about it.

Also, you are right Joe Wilson said in his piece Iraq did not buy yellow cake from Niger and as far as I know they never did manage to get more yellow cake. Of course, in his report to the CIA he did say they tried (and failed) and that is what the President claimed in his famous 16 words in the state of the Union (of course the President claimed from Afica not just one country)

So what medication are you wrong to get some many facts wrong.

George said...

I've been reading the above while listening to Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" at full volume.

http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Machine-Music-Lou-Reed/dp/B00004VXF2

I've just about ground the enamel off my back teeth. Mmmm....feels good.

David Walser said...

I'm not sure why we are debating whether Ms. Plame "sent" her husband to Niger or not. Three facts came out in the Libby trial:

* Ms. Plame wrote a memo recommending her husband for a trip to Niger to investigate the rumors Iraq was seeking uranium.

* The date of her memo was February 12, 2002.

* The date VP Cheney first learned of the rumors Iraq was seeking uranium was February 13, 2002.

So, unless the Vice President has a time machine, he could NOT have had ANYTHING to do with Wilson's trip to Niger. Did he ask the CIA for more information about the rumors? Yes, he asked for more information on the day AFTER Ms. Plame wrote her memo recommending her husband.

She may not have had the "authority" to "send" him, but she was a lot more involved with the trip than anyone in the White House.

The Drill SGT said...

I could have worn that Valerie wrote a memo or email that commented favorably on her husband's qualifications for this covert trip?

I have had several acquaintances who work or worked for the CIA. Every one commented that everything they ever did was covered by CIA paperwork that promised huge and dire outcome if they revealed anything. Joe went and was free to talk about it?

somebody wanted him free to blab.

The Drill SGT said...

oh, and she had worked at CIA HQ daily for 5 years doing analysis work. she was outed, and all of a sudden her career was dead because she could only do what she had done for 5 years and that wasn't fulfilling? she pined to be James Bond again?

I detect victimhood here. a bad case of it.

Fritz said...

Alpha,
For the sake of argument I will agree she was covert. I will not buy this trope that she is innocent in her outing. I will also not let her agency off the hook for not making a greater effort to protect her identity as well. Lastly, she was a participant in her husband's efforts to inform the public of Joe's trip, that is not protecting her agency from politicalization of intelligence.

Freder Frederson said...

Of course, in his report to the CIA he did say they tried (and failed) and that is what the President claimed in his famous 16 words in the state of the Union (of course the President claimed from Afica not just one country)

Well no, what he found was that there were some preliminary discussions about renewing "trade" between the two countries. That uranium was never specifically mentioned but that is what the Nigerien officials assumed the Iraqis were talking about (since that is the only possible thing Niger has that Iraq would want). The 16 infamous words referred of course to the forgeries which purported to show contracts had been signed and the yellowcake was awaiting shipment to Iraq. That was completely debunked by Wilson's trip. Of course you can cling to the shred of hope that the British still have not backed off their claims even though the documents are obvious forgeries.

Naked Lunch said...

Hdhouse-
It wouldn't matter if there was a video of Dick Cheney ordering a tomahawk missile on Plame's coordinates and pushing a big red button himself to some people. They would just deny it. If that didn't work they'd just say she deserved it.

johnstodder said...

I think wingnuts and lefties, brownshirts and BDS victims can all hold hands today and agree: For all the attention it's getting, this hearing added nothing, changed nothing, resolved nothing.

RSwan said...

Freder,
The Presidents statement referred to information the British had. It had absolutely nothing to do with any forgery. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the discussion with false information. I'm sure you don't want to do that.

Fritz said...

Freder,
The forged documents came after his February 2002 trip. Joe Wilson himself back peddled on this claim from his op-ed.

Freder Frederson said...

The Presidents statement referred to information the British had. It had absolutely nothing to do with any forgery. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the discussion with false information. I'm sure you don't want to do that.

The British based their assessment on the forged documents pedaled by that sleazy Italian.

RSwan said...

Also Freder,
Wilson's trip did not debunk any forgeries because the CIA did not have access to those forgeries at the time of his trip. Unless you are suggesting he had something to do with the creation of those forgeries ;)

To be fair, Wilson later claimed he got mixed up on the dates as to when he heard what. I do actually believe him in this, but then again I don't believe Libby lied for the same reason.

Freder Frederson said...

For all the attention it's getting, this hearing added nothing, changed nothing, resolved nothing.

It did reveal that Bush lied when he promised to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name. Apparently, even the routine procedures that are supposed to be done after the even inadvertent and completely innocent release of classified information were not followed by the White House.

RSwan said...

Freder,
I've also read the forgeries originated with the French who gave them to the Italians. Doesn't Wilson have good relations with the French?

I put any evidence the British based their evidence on the forged documents on the same level as the above paragraph.

Of course, there was the anouncment of an uranium smuggling ring just busted in Africa. Seems hundreds of miners were going in and out of a supposedly closed mine. I have heard this is the source of the British evidence, not forged documents. Of course, that wouldn't support Freder's position.

RSwan said...

Funny I thought the Justice Department worked for Bush? And didn't they convict somebody recently?

I do agree, all the details of this incident have not been discovered. I do not believe the special prosecutor was interested in a full accounting of what happened.

Fritz said...

Naked,
If you guys could produce any evidence rather than speculative conspiracies, you would get some traction.

Did you know of Joe Wilson before his op-ed? I did, the obvious question, who sent him?

Henry said...

johnstoddard -- For all the attention it's getting, this hearing added nothing, changed nothing, resolved nothing

What? How can you say that? Alpha Liberal has a link to video!

Fritz said...

Hey, the newest non-scandal. White House didn't investigate itself! Da, the FBI was. For the White House to have begun such an investigation, it could have been construed as obstruction of justice.

Freder Frederson said...

White House didn't investigate itself! Da, the FBI was. For the White House to have begun such an investigation, it could have been construed as obstruction of justice.

If you had watched the hearings, you would know that isn't true.

johnstodder said...

My point was, the partisans who've burned up millions of hours of their lives, which they'll never get back, fighting about the real meaning of the Wilson/Plame/Rove/Libby/Fitzgerald story haven't come any closer to proving the other side wrong.

No, don't try again. It just ain't working. Anyone not heavily invested in either Bush=treason, or Wilson=scum, has long ago moved on.

My guess is, most Americans' reaction to the hearing will be, "If you squint your eyes, Valerie Plame kinda looks like she could've been a Bond girl."

Sorry.

MadisonMan said...

For all the attention it's getting, this hearing added nothing, changed nothing, resolved nothing

It seems to have stamped out the She was not covert meme.

reality check said...

Ironic that calls himself the Drill Sgt should be demeaning Valerie Plame's patriotism and career.

Not ironic, actually sort of disgusting.

johnstodder, I think today's hearing should have put to rest any talk that Plame was not covert and classified and had gone on foreign trips.

So we are on to debunking the next of the reichtard talking points....

johnstodder said...

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Plame was covert. It's still murky as to whether any of the leakers knew she was covert, possibly because it's not common knowledge whether someone who was covert and worked overseas retains that status even after coming in from the cold, so to speak. Again, I point to the famous "Who's Who" entry to support the point that "exposing" Plame didn't matter a whole lot to either of them until after the NY Times op-ed ran. Perhaps their concern was sincere, but it was late-blooming. To repeat what I said above, both Mr. and Mrs. should've known the NY Times op-ed would've put an end to that.

David Walser said...

It did reveal that Bush lied when he promised to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name.

But, we did learn who leaked Plame's name: Richard Armitage. He leaked her name several times. We know of the Woodward and Novak leaks and have good reason to believe he leaked her name to others, including Andrea Mitchel. Fizgerald knew who the leaker was within days of his appointment as special counsel -- which may be why he almost immediately sought expansion of his authority to pursue process crimes (a/k/a perjury). Fitzgerald knew from day one (or two or three) that no crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's name. Yet, he continued to investigate. Why? He told us in his press conference, if someone has done something wrong, it does not matter what law they are prosecuted under. In this case, Fitzgerald felt there were good leakers (Armitage) and bad leakers (Libby). Neither had violated the law, but Libby deserved to be punished. (So did Rove, but Rove didn't fall for the perjury trap.)

Simon said...

Naked Lunch said...
"She just testified under oath that she didn't [recommended a qualified candidate instead of the guy she shared a bed with]."

And no one would ever lie under oath in connection to Plamegate. That's why Libby was found innocent of perjury. ;)

reality check said...

What does the who's who's entry have to do with anything?

Here's some more interesting news from today's testimony:

Top Bush Official Reveals White House Never Investigated Plame Leak

Shortly after the leak was revealed by Novak, Bush said he wanted an investigation to identify the leaker:

A senior official quoted Bush as saying, “I want to get to the bottom of this,” during a daily meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove.

Bush: “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.“

And yet....

Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, revealed today that to his knowledge the White House has never ordered a probe, report, or sanctions as a result of the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. “I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office,” he said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said he was “shocked” by Knodell’s testimony, adding that the White House’s lack of action was a “breach on top of a breach.”

Knodell claimed the White House did not investigate because there was an outside investigation taking place. But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted that the investigation “didn’t start until months and months later, and [only] had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated.” Waxman asked, “But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn’t there?” Knodell answered, “If that was the case, yes

reality check said...

I love it, Fitzgerald is a Republican prosecutor is who hard on corruption, period.

Yeah, you have to slime him by saying something never substantiated by anything, that he thinks there are good leakers and bad leakers.

Perhaps he felt as he said that there were perjurers and non perjurers. Perhaps he was using prosecutor's discretion to understand that he could not win a conviction against Armitage, not because he hadn't outed a covert agent, but due to the nature of the statues.

Still, go ahead, just slime away. We'll watch the ectoplasm flow.

Freder Frederson said...

But, we did learn who leaked Plame's name: Richard Armitage.

If you had been paying attention you would know that Armitage was one of several people who leaked Plame's name. Novak himself had at least two sources.

Kevin said...

The British based their assessment on the forged documents pedaled by that sleazy Italian.
Factcheck.org on Bush's 16 words

reality check said...

It did reveal that Bush lied when he promised to get to the bottom of who leaked Plame's name.

But, we did learn who leaked Plame's name: Richard Armitage.


Don't shift the goal post. Bush said he was going to get to the bottom of it. Yet, he didn't do a thing to find out how the name got linked in his administration.

Nothing happened until Fitzgerald was appointed much much later to determine if a crime had been committed.

There is a difference between "get to the bottom of it ... (so we can prevent that from happening in the future)" and "find out if a crime has been committed."

Note to Simon: jeez dood, what would it take you to convince you of anything? is that level of proof possible?

I'm sorry you fascists have been having a bad few days. To get over it, why not add some stuff to Ann's hagiography. I hear she marched in the civil rights movement and later piloted an airline down to the ground after the pilot became scared during a thunderstorm.

Fitzgerald discovered the Armitage link many months later.

johnstodder said...

"Knodell claimed the White House did not investigate because there was an outside investigation taking place."

That seems to be a fairly reasonable explanation. The CIA was pretty clear that it wanted a criminal probe. At that point, an internal investigation becomes a redundancy and possibly an interference.

Henry Waxman's concern about why the WH didn't investigate if there were ongoing leaks of classified information is a bit rich, don't you think?

Even the most anti-Bush partisan would have to acknowledge the Plame affair was a one-off, a hit against Wilson designed to punish and discredit him via his spouse. It was a unique set of circumstances.

Nobody seriously thought there was a mole in the White House steadily leaking classified data, of which the Plame information was only one damaging secret. Whoever put out the Plame info can be accused of recklessness, not treason.

The Who's Who entry matters because the entry said, as I understand it, that his wife, named Valerie, worked for the CIA. That's all anybody at the WH or State was accused of disclosing to reporters. The Who's Who entry didn't disclose she was covert, but neither did the WH.

MadisonMan said...

Simon, I know you're trying to joke, but suggesting Valerie Plame is lying because Scooter Libby was convicted of it is pretty weak.

Freder Frederson said...

The Who's Who entry matters because the entry said, as I understand it, that his wife, named Valerie, worked for the CIA.

You are mistaken. It didn't say she worked for the CIA.

reality check said...

the outside investigation was months later, and was narrowly focused on finding if a crime had been committed as opposed to just finding out what had happened so that it could be corrected.

George said...

Boy, that Lou Reed album was good.

Now I'm spinning Sabbath's debut. Their best, I think. And I'm playing it at 16 rpms. Loud.

I got this little ball-peen hammer, and I'm using it to smack my back teeth.

Valerie...ow!...Plame...oh, oh....I'm lovin' it....Bang! Oh....Think I got a tooth loose.

Excellent!

reality check said...

There are not a whole lot of who's who's entries that say a covert agent works for the cia.

stodder, go buy yourself a clue, then come back.

seriously stodder, you are making sloanasaurus look like a savant.

Fen said...

Well no, what he found was that there were some preliminary discussions about renewing "trade" between the two countries. That uranium was never specifically mentioned but that is what the Nigerien officials assumed the Iraqis were talking about (since that is the only possible thing Niger has that Iraq would want).

No. British intel has proof that several ME countries, including Iraq, were negoitiating with Nigerians for yellowcake. They still stand by that assessment.


The 16 infamous words referred of course to the forgeries which purported to show contracts had been signed and the yellowcake was awaiting shipment to Iraq.

No. Those 16 words referred to mutliple sources of intel that said Saddam SOUGHT to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

That was completely debunked by Wilson's trip.

No. The forgery surfaced AFTER Wilson's trip. And testimony by CIA before Senate Intel Cmte says Wilson's report confrimed their suspicians that Saddam had SOUGHT yellow cake from Niger.

Of course you can cling to the shred of hope that the British still have not backed off their claims even though the documents are obvious forgeries. The British based their assessment on the forged documents pedaled by that sleazy Italian.


No. British intel re this is from multiple sources. You are falling for the old Soviet propaganda trick of planting fakes on top of evidence, so that you'll discount all similar evidence because of the forgery.

Despite all these facts we will be hearing from the right wing "Plame was not covert." "Everybody in DC knew she was a CIA agent"

I don't believe her statement that she went outside the US on covert ops in the last five years. CIA is in a bueracratic war with WH - they need to provide proof she was covert under US law.

B said...

SMACKDOWN!
Toensing wins!

I swear, Henry Wasteman should hang his head in shame for opening an inquiry into which no crimw was committed.

Toensing is person of the year.
hdhouse - you are a fascist.

reality check said...

I don't believe her statement that she went outside the US on covert ops in the last five years. CIA is in a bueracratic war with WH - they need to provide proof she was covert under US law.

Judge Tatel, Patrick Fitzgerald, General Hayden, Representative Waxman, the CIA in their filing, ALL these people with access to the facts say she was covert and covered under the law in question.

And who the fuck are you and what access to the facts do you have?

You are living in a fentasy.

johnstodder said...

Right. Sorry. I got it backward. He used her maiden name in his Who's Who entry, not Valerie Wilson. He didn't say where she worked. However, the Who's Who listing did factor in to how Robert Novak got the story in the first place. He's said that until he consulted Who's Who, all he had was "Wilson's wife." He got her name out of the book, then got the CIA to confirm, on the record through a spokesman, that a person named "Valerie Plame" worked there. Hence, my larger point remains: The day Wilson decided to protest Bush's policies by publishing his op-ed was the beginning of the end of Ms. Plame's career in the CIA as a covert agent. If it hadn't been Novak, it would've been somebody else. This was a white-hot story, and there were too many ways in which this information could become known, too many people who were willing to give out her name, innocently or not.

B said...

"Covert" only matters under the definition of the law that could prosecute someone for leaking.

I can call hdhouse a knowledgeable, thoughtful person all I want, but he will never fit a "legal" - or rational for that matter - definition of such.

I could call Democrats honest and committed to doing what is right for America, but that would be recognized by everyone as having no basis in fact for anything as a legal definition.

Freder Frederson said...

No. Those 16 words referred to mutliple sources of intel that said Saddam SOUGHT to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

And those 16 words come back to what no one is disputing. Iraqi officials went to Niger in the late '90s and discussed trade with Niger (which the Nigeriens surmised probably meant that Iraq wanted yellowcake) and it never went farther than that. Kind of like Saddam's "operational" connections with Al Qaeda.

ASX said...

Ann,
Did you happen to catch her testimony? It's on C-SPAN this evening at 8:00, if you would like to catch it.

I saw it. It was genuinely breathtaking.

johnstodder said...

Iraqi officials went to Niger in the late '90s and discussed trade with Niger (which the Nigeriens surmised probably meant that Iraq wanted yellowcake) and it never went farther than that.

Why did the CIA vet and OK Bush's 16 words in January 2003, despite Wilson's findings in February 2002, and only raise questions about them them subsequent to the Wilson op-ed's publication? Factcheck.org suggests Wilson's report inadvertently reinforced other intelligence confirming Iraqi forays for yellowcake by confirming a 1999 trade meeting occured, though Wilson stresses the subject of uranium never came up specifically. Was that the case, or did the CIA simply discount Wilson altogether because of other intel?

Also: Why did Wilson wait six months, until after the invasion, to go public with his doubts and concerns? Why didn't he come out the day after Bush's speech and make his "twisted intelligence" claim? Or at least say or do something through internal channels?

Maybe he's explained all this in his book.

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
My point was that saying - as NL did - that the story of someone who has an obvious dog in this race is credible purely because they testified something under oath to Congress (was she even under oath? I have no idea) in connection with this case in particular just doesn't pass the laugh test. I'm not getting into the debate about whether Revenant or NL has the best of it, only that NL's unsupported assertion doesn't establish propriety any more than Revenant's unsupported assertion. No one on the left is willing for a nanosecond to presume good faith on the part of anyone in the Bush administration, so I see little reason to presume good faith on the part of its critics.

Ultimately, I agree with David Brooks' take - there was never anything at all to this story in the first place, and there's even less to it now.

MadisonMan said...

I'm not sure if she was under oath or not -- the story doesn't say, although the caption of the accompanying picture says she's being sworn in. But that wording is a little nebulous too.

Nonetheless, I'll maintain that attacking her for maybe lying just isn't up to your usual standards :) And I'll add that once, long ago, I had good faith in this Bush Administration. Long ago.

Cedarford said...

ASX said...
Ann,
Did you happen to catch her testimony? It's on C-SPAN this evening at 8:00, if you would like to catch it.

I saw it. It was genuinely breathtaking


I agree that Plame was breath- taking. Absolutely poke-worthy.

No wonder Joe squired her around to all the Georgetown parties. After 3 others, he finally got a real trophy wife.

I hear the Dynamic Duo want Gwyneth Paltrow to play her in the movie.

But bottom line, if Paltrow...err ...Plame...had the least concern about her cover, she would not have had her democratic hack husband use nepotism to get a trip to Niger and the highly, highly unusual waiver of confidentiality so he could talk all he wanted to about his CIA mission.

And if Plame was still clinging to her precious cover and career even after involving a political aspirant - why wasn't she screaming like hell when Joe announced he would go global with the NYTimes and every MSM TV station making his groundless accusastions, and not just blow her cover, but reveal her nepotism?

Then their luck really improved.

Bush stuck a sword in himself with the help of Religious Right co-moron John Ashcroft and named a special prosecutor with carte blanche to persecute his whole Administration and effectively cripple his Administrations senior advisors.

Then, thank God, the war started going really badly, Katrina, Miers happened, and Bush was too weak to prevent Fitzgerald from stomping all over his inept ass.

When Kenneth Starr was on a wrecking spree, Clinton escaped any criminal charge for lying under oath on video, then repeating his lie straight to the people and reporters....simply because he was a popular, competent President.

They should both kneel and give thanks to God their creepy little schemes panned out into millions of bucks in media contracts pouring from the simple partisan ambition and nepotism.

Not even Delay, Dashle, Cuomo, Tauzin, or Markowski of Alaska fethered the family nest better, or more undeservedly, than the Dynamic Duo managed.

ChrisO said...

I can't believe how much disinformation continues to be spread about this. To me, the most humorous notion is that Wilson outed Plame by writing his op-ed, followed by the blanket statement "of course people were going to find out she worked for the CIA after Wilson brought attention to himself."

So the contention is that the identities of covert CIA agents are only protected by the fact that no one has ever heard of them? That once anyone even casually tries to learn something about a covert agent, the truth will immediately come out? Could someone please take that a step further and explain just how that would happen?

Another leap of logic is that Wilson's op-ed would immediately bring attention to his wife. Have you ever heard anything about Richard Clarke's wife? How about Scooter Libby, before he was indicted? How about George Tenet? And are you sure that the spouses of covert agents never call attention to themselves? You guys have seen too much Man From Uncle. No one's claiming that Plame existed in a shadow world, meeting people behind the hidden door in the back of the dry cleaner. The fact that someone might know she is married to Joe Wilson (which, as has been repeated ad nauseum, was already known to their neighbors, their families, the people at their wedding, etc.)does not automatically lead to the conclusion that they would then know she was with the CIA. These blanket statements are a sure sign of a lack of critical thinking.

As for the famous "recommendation" memo, Plame has said she was asked to write a memo detailing her husband's qualifications. That falls far short of a "recommendation."

And what's wrong with a Clinton Gore supporter being sent on the mission? Should it be policy that the only people the CIA sends on missions are loyalists of the party in the White House?

The fact is, the only people focused on Joe Wilson's wife were in the White House. And they handled the information so recklessly that people like Armitage found out and assumed everyone knew. Everything that followed stemmed from the fact that the White House was tossing around classified information in an irresponsible fashion, and was determined that the press would know her identity one way or another.

General Hayden, Bush's appointed head of the CIA, testified today that she was covert. Of all the assertions bandied around by the right, the actual proof of any of them is conspicuously absent. The Republicans' favorite poster girl, Victoria Toensing, has appeared everywhere for the last year or more to exclaim that Plame was not covert, based on her expertise as one of the drafters of the IIPA. Yet when she testified today, she admitted that she had no way to know if Plame was covert or not.

You guys spend so much time repeating this stuff to each other that you have completely lost the thread of what's been proven and what's partisan conjecture.

What's most disturbing is the casual acceptance of the fact that if you write an op-ed attacking the administration, you are fair game for any kind of vengeance they choose to wreak. "Don't criticize the government and you won't get hurt" is a pretty shitty attitude for a democracy.

B said...

I forgot the actual benefit of all of this . . .

. . returning the Republicans to Congress in 2008.

Let Henry Wasteman run his committee as long as he wants. Please let him! The true cumulative and final effect of it, after it once again becomes non-news, will be leaving a taste in the mind of the average moderate voter as to why they didn't vote the Democrats into power in 2000, '04 or '06: Democrats do crap like this. They can't do anything worthwhile in Congress - health care, transportation, the war - so they just do committees, seeking to tear down their perceived opposition rather than solve and build something constructive for this country.

That's their game plan - divide and conquer - look at the other guy and vote for me - I'm not as bad!

But America will be over it's snit about punishing the Republicans over the war and look at 2 years of nothing but committees and wasted opportunities. Just notice how close so many of the '06 races were In over 80% of the competitive races, a Democrat had to take at least 2 or more conservative positions to win.

Not next time.

Moderates will vote for the real thing.

Congressional Democrat motto for '08:

Power for power's sake!

Simon said...

MM - if it's any consolation, I haven't had a presumption of good faith WRT this administration since October 3, 2005.

johnstodder said...

The fact is, the only people focused on Joe Wilson's wife were in the White House. And they handled the information so recklessly that people like Armitage found out and assumed everyone knew.

Where do you get that?

I don't give a s--- either way, really. I'm just applying Occam's razor to this story. Wilson is sent on a mission by the CIA. 18 months later, he uses information from that mission to write an op-ed denouncing the Bush Administration. In doing so, he reveals to the world that he went on this mission. Inevitably, a reporter was going to try to find out more about that mission, because it obviously was a newsworthy event, especially in light of his critique. It was not an irrelevant detail to that story that his wife worked at the CIA. She was at minimum a reference validating his Niger connections, as we learned today. Her employment by the CIA was known by many people, although I don't think it was ever established that anyone accused in this leak scandal knew she was a covert agent. Her covert status was not blown by Robert Novak; merely the fact that she worked there and that there might have been a connection relevant to the news story concerning Wilson. And, by any journalistic standard, there was. If a reporter knew about Plame and kept it out of his or her story about Wilson, to me that would constitute news management, which is a journalistic no-no.

Yeah, we don't know or care what Richard Clarke's wife did for a living because it is not relevant to his story. In a way, by raising him, you are disproving your own point about the Administration's alleged habit of vengeance. To my knowledge, if Richard Clarke is married, his wife's life hasn't changed as a result of his far more substantive and truthful criticism of the Administration. If your theory was correct, all of the Administration's critics would all be paupers or in prison, when in fact writing a book attacking Bush is one of the surest ways to get rich today.

B said...

ChrisO

The reason you have no credibility at all in this issue is because you have to split hairs so fine to make it appear your side of the story is true, that you make stupid mistakes like what you just wrote above:

General Hayden, Bush's appointed head of the CIA, testified today that she was covert.

Gen Hayden didn't appear today, nor is it true that he "testified today". He didn't testify under oath. He wrote a letter that Henry Wasteman read into the record. But, again, as Plame herself said under oath (something Gen Hayden DID NOT do) she was not told by CIA officials at the time of the leak nor afterward that her status was legally defined as "covert."

USA Today :
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., just said he has been told by the CIA, in a statement authorized by CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, that "Miss Wilson's CIA employment status was covert."

ChrisO - nice try at misleading. This proves you are not credible on this issue - nor are any of your as are all of your Democrat brethren.

Your dishonesty in this debate disqualifies you from being taken seriously.

Thanks for proving my earlier points about having no scruples - Democrats just want power - by any means necessary.

MadisonMan said...

I haven't had a presumption of good faith WRT this administration since October 3, 2005.

There was a Solar Eclipse that day. Maybe that's why GWB nominated Her.

My good faith started waning when Iraq was invaded and really plummeted with Mission Accomplished.

MadisonMan said...

. . returning the Republicans to Congress in 2008.

Riiight. Because they did such a bang-up job in the immediate past. Deficits down. The size of government down. Entitlements down. Cronyism and corruption down. Immigration problems solved. Respect for the US up worldwide! They sure deserve another crack at power with that record!

Democrats just want power - by any means necessary.

And how do all those benificient Republicans want power?

George said...

Ah, thanks to Lou and Ozzy I've now gotten a couple teeth loose.

Now with the needlenose pliers, I'll....er...Joe..ah...Willllsonn...
.....Armiiitaggg!! Ug...Niiiiiiger!

I feel much better now.

NSC said...

That's a conflict to be resolved. Is it anything or do the words "recommend" and "suggest" have some subtle meaning that will be revealed later, erasing the conflict? That's just mystifying.

As mystifying as the subtle meaning of "is."

B said...

Madison Man:

And how do all those benificient Republicans want power?


Excellent question. It relates to the very issue of the ridiculous waste of Congress time that these hearings are.

Answer this one honestly:
Of which party's candidate is it more likely to be said:
He would rather lose honestly than win at any cost

You know the answer.

As to the previous accomplishments" of Congress when the Republicans were in control: no argument here that they were bad and stupid in a lot of areas. But if you:

a) aren't old enough to remember when Democrats controlled the House for 40 years straight and the multitude of everyday scandals

b) can't remember that any of the "good things" of the Clinton Presidency didn't happen until after the Republicans came to Congressional power in 1994;

c) if you can't recognize the difference between the Republican's occasional stupidity and the Democrat's complete utter incompetence and socialistic tendencies

. . . then you are not as smart as I thought - and I do believe from your frequent writings that you are among the sharpest commenters.

Which then makes me fear for my country's future.

The MinuteMan said...

As to whether she recommended her husband, there is this from Libby's indictment:

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

That was Grenier, who said something similar at the trial.

As to Ms. Plame's story that she was not involved, please: her gist is that a colleague suggested it to her; she and the colleague ran it past her boss; the boss asked her to sen an email telling people; she then invited Joe into the CIA for a meeting and introduced him there.

Let's just say that if Karl Rove tells folks who did all that with Harriet Miers in chatting about the 93 attorneys but was not involved, folks will not buy it.

Tom Maguire

ChrisO said...

b, you are an idiot. The fact that I said Hayden testified, rather than that his testimony was read into the record, somehow destroys my credibility? I guess that's preferable to actually responding to a single one of my points. And who gives a shit if Hayden's testimony wasn't "under oath?" Are we to presume then that anyone affliated with Bush should be presumed to be lying if he's not "under oath?" His being under oath is only relevant if you are challenging the truthfulness of his statements. Are you?

Oh, and b, you said "why they didn't vote the Democrats into power in 2000, '04 or '06..." The Democrats wren't voted into power in '06? Are you sure? I think you've lost all credibility, and your thoughts on this issue no longer matter. Hey, that was easy.

And stodder, I said the only people concerned about Plame were within the White House, and you said "Where do you get that?" Here's where I got it. Until the administration proactively released her identity to the media, is there any evidence that anyone was inquiring at all about Wilson's wife's identity, just based on his op-ed? I'll help you out - the naswer is no. You continue this argument that any enterprising reporter would have discovered her covert status, but based on what? All this conjecture is being floated around as fact. You are basically saying that the identity of any covert agent can be uncovered by any enterprising reporter. Bullshit. The tipping point would still have to be that someone would make the conscious decision to reveal the identity of a covert agent. If any enterprising reporter can do it, then we must assume that any enterprising foreign intelligence srvice can do it. So covert staus is basically worthless, and we have no secrets. Have you noticed that none of your scenario, as with so many of you guys' scenarios, is unsupported by a single fact?

Valerie Plame, Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Tatel, and General Hayden have all said she was covert. Who with actual first hand knowledge has said she is not covert? Yet that haasn't stopped the spinning of fanciful scenarios, once again unsupported by fact. "She drove to work through the front gate at the CIA every day." That's a popular one. Have you ever read anything by anybody stating they had first hand knowledge of this? But the spinners just keep on spinning.

MadisonMan said...

can't remember that any of the "good things" of the Clinton Presidency didn't happen until after the Republicans came to Congressional power in 1994;

Yes, when the parties had to share power. I'm all for the Republicans regaining the Congress in '08, but only if Bill Richardson (or some other non-Senatorial Democrat) is President. I don't want a Republican President and a Republican congress. We just had one-party rule, and it was an unprecedented disaster.

As for the first question, you seem to know my answer already, which saves me the trouble of a reply. I will say, though, that one of my Senators is Feingold, and if you think he runs for re-election just saying and doing anything to get elected, you really don't pay attention.

Daryl Herbert said...

Plame is telling the truth about the Bush Administration and if some factual details are off, that doesn't really matter. The important thing is, she's telling the truth, so why quibble over accuracy?

mar said...

Plame the messenger! Joe Wilson was a lying has-been when he wrote the lying op-ed [half-truths are lies] so blatant that the Senate Intell Cte and even the Kerry campaign ditched this lying swanning loser.

His dead-end job wifey tried to pull a few strings and is now lying under oath about her covert status, secure in the knowledge that a non-patriot like Waxman and his Dumborat buddies will never call a special counselor on this bimbo.

Naked Lunch said...

And no one would ever lie under oath in connection to Plamegate. That's why Libby was found innocent of perjury. ;)

This was the whole reason for the hearing, for her to go on record under oath clearing the record, so to speak. She would not have agreed to testify [and Waxman would never have called the hearing] knowing full well there are millions of right wingers just waiting for the slightest trip up, anything to justify this all.

It's ironic it was the NYT and not Cheney that got its payback - with the snarky headline - "What I didn't find...", for being humiliated for a string of fables from the WH like this one. But Cheney panicked over one op-ed from a nobody on the same pages printing their tall tales. Must have struck a nerve!

B said...

Madison man:

I'll agree about Senator Feingold.
That is why the question is worded about which party's candidate is it more "likely" to be said.

And, Richardson is the only Democrat I could stomach for President. He's experienced, wrong on most issues of course, but there is no other Democrat within miles of the nomination that is more qualified.

ChrisO:

Thank you for your response. You guys just make it too easy to prove the things I say about Democrats are true.

B said...

ChrisO:

Actually, you got me. I meant to say 2000, '02 and '04, not '06.

I just corrected the error you pointed out. You, as expected, nitpicked over definitions, not unlike David Geffen's favorite prevaricator, Bill Clinton.

You keep good company - in the credibility department.

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"There was a Solar Eclipse that day. Maybe that's why GWB nominated [Miers]."

I think they got some really good weed delivered the night before. The best case scenario is that they were high (imagine one of the roundtable scenes from That 70th Show with Bush, Rove, Andy Card and Cheney). The worst case scenario is that they actually seriously thought this was a good idea.

I remember that out of nowhere, in the middle of that whole mess, Scalia gave Maria Bartiromo an interview on CNBC. Recall that Bush had promised to nominate Justices in the mold of Scalia; and Nino looked miserable. I don't know, maybe he just had gas, but I've never seen the man looking so dejected. The subtext seemed to scream "that's what you idiots think my mold is? This is what you think is a nominee in the mold of Scalia?!"


"My good faith started waning when Iraq was invaded and really plummeted with Mission Accomplished."

I can't trace when my mood started to blacken. It's easy to look back with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, but I think they've made an awful mess of it, and we just have to hope that the surge works, I think.

I think that there is a substantial and growing contingent of Republicans who can't wait until we're rid of this turbulent administration.

ChrisO said...

B, you admitted your mistake because you had no choice. You were 100 percent wrong when you said '06. However, your disagreement with my statement was based on nitpicking the difference between testimony and having a statement read into the record. Your nit was not central to my point. Is it your contention that the fact that the statement Hayden approved was read into the record instead of testified to under oath in any way changes the nature of what he said? If not, then what's yourt point? I notice for all of the words you have written, you haven't provided one substantive response.

Eli Blake said...

She would have been outed whether she recommended Wilson, or not. They wanted to get him, and getting her was the quickest and easiest way to do it.

reality check said...

"Her employment by the CIA was known by many people, although I don't think it was ever established that anyone accused in this leak scandal knew she was a covert agent."

Um, sorry, no it wasn't. You lose. No one knew. Do you think if they had known that Libby's defense wouldn't have brought forth a slew of people to testify that they knew?

Neighbors didn't know. No one knew.

Again, it's truly despicable to see fellow Americans call her such ugly names, this woman risked her life time and again so you folks could sleep at night.

Funny, it's what Col. Jessep said,

Victoria Plame uses words like honor, code, loyalty...she uses these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You assholes abuse 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain her to men that rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom she provides, then questions her patriotism and calls her a fraud. I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Or fucking sign up.

You guys are despicable douchebags that would have done very well in Stalinist Russia, or East Germany.

MikeinSC said...

That was the funniest post I've ever read, RC.

...oh wait, you were being SERIOUS?
-=Mike

B said...

ChrisO,

Your polite response deserves a polite response.

Why did Fitzgerald prosecute no one for the crime that everyone cried about - the uncovering of a covert agent?

Unless you or someone can explain it to me - it is because either:

a) she did not fit the legal definition of "covert" as required by the law, making the label covert only a rock to throw against the Bush administration.

b) she was not uncovered at all.

I'm frankly confused. And I'm not amused that when the New York Times itself decided that this was much ado about nothing after Ms Miller of the Times was about to go to jail, it all now seems to only be a partisan attack of anti-Bushites.

Please feel free to correct my misimpressions.

Palladian said...

RC, you need to stop. Seriously. You destroy every conversation here. I don't know why Althouse is letting you trash her site with your increasingly poisonous comments, but if you keep it up, you won't have anyone left to defame and insult; all the decent commenters will stop coming here.

Sloanasaurus said...

Althouse does have a point about Plame's use of wording. We have an obvious contradiction in testimony. Either Plame or the other officials are lying or the more likely scenario is that both are telling a slightly different truth. For example, Plame stated that she did not "recommend" or "suggest" her husband. However she could have "informed" her boss that her husband was "available" or that her husband has had prior dealings in Niger. These would not technically be recommendations. No doubt that Plame practiced her testimony.

The whole Plame story mucks up the truth about the the "16 words" and the seriousness of Saddam's pursuit of Nuclear Weapons. Saddam greatly desired nukes, had was a year away before Gulf War I. If there had been no Iraq war, Saddam would again be close to producing nukers. British Intelligence did say that Saddam tried to by Uranium from Niger and British Intelligence stands by their claim. We also know that Saddam purchased Uranium from Niger in the 1980s - so says the IAEA.

It's fine for the Left to play games with this issue and twist it around to make the Bush Administration look dishonest. Let's hope that the games stop if the left ever takes the Presidency. At that point they will have to take intelligence and facts seriously if they are going to be serious about protecting America.

johnstodder said...

ChrisO,

Do you try to win a lot of arguments by changing what the other guy said and then refuting your dumb-ass, dishonest version? Here's an example of your high-integrity methods:

You continue this argument that any enterprising reporter would have discovered her covert status, but based on what? after which go on this riff about the logical implications of my alleged position that evidently got you breathless with excitement.

Except I never said what you say I said.

My argument was that any enterprising reporter would have discovered that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I specifically said it was not known if she was covert. That is why Fitzgerald's probe fell short. Intent to disclose secrets could not be proven because they couldn't prove that anyone who knew she was covert when they disclosed her CIA connection to reporters.

To make it real easy for you (or harder for you to distort), back in 2003 there was a level of knowledge in the DC political community that she was a CIA employee. There was NO such knowledge of her covert status.

If there had been knowledge of her covert status, Richard Armitage would have been prosecuted for violating the espionage act, as would have Libby. Absent such knowledge, it was not a crime for these officials, or any others, to guide reporters to the fact of her employment, nor to speculate that Wilson's trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA might have had something to do with Plame's job at the CIA.

It wasn't really even political hardball, particularly. It was a data point. How does "Wilson's wife works at the CIA" slime either one of them, or discredit Wilson's op-ed? Maybe the hint of nepotism? But that's a relevant question, even if Plame is being truthful by denying it.

Johnny Nucleo said...

Can any of us non-spies truly understand what it is to be spy?

Can we understand what it would be like for a "career that we loved" to be over in an instant?

"I was an operator. And I loved it. And it was over in an instant. Because of Bob Novak! Who totally like punched me in the stomach!"

(If it were me, I would have simply killed Bob Novak.)

Can any of us imagine James Bond feeling "hurt and betrayed by members of the administration who not only failed to protect (his) identity but, indeed, were the ones who destroyed (his) cover.”?

We are going to lose this war.

hdhouse said...

as long as there are examples pure stupidity as B and Fen et al, this country is in danger.

One of the things our enemies has going for us is the stupidity of the citizenry...being lack of reading comprehension, lack of curiosity, or the ability of others to lead them around like they were on a leash.

this thread is a truely sad reflection of people watching c-span (no commentary) and when people are under oath concluding they are lying just to hurt Bush. Bush is history. he is a 30% president and as his actions are exposed that will erode not gain but there are hardcore defenders who, absent fact, will just make it up.

B, Fen and others in this thread just make it up. I think we can conclude that liars lie for liars.

George said...

Love, just adore this Val Plame chat.

Now that my dental work's taken care of (see above), I gotta fix the hangnail on my big toe.

Got me a nice chainsaw. 16" Stihl.

Vurp. Vurp.

Vrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

Vaaaannnnnitttyy Faaiiiirrrr..aaaaaaaa....

Pogo said...

Johnny Nucleo,

You're spot on. And the left is making damn sure we do lose. And after their victory (and the US's loss), they will once again successfully avert their eyes from the ensuing devastation wrought by leaving a job unfinished and a people unprotected.

Omaha1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Omaha1 said...

When Shakespeare asked, "What's in a name?"
He'd never heard of Agent Plame
Since Armitage admitted blame
Convicting Scooter was a shame
Ambassador Joe Wilson's claim
To "Politics of Truth" is lame
Reporters that gave him his fame
Now see the rules of their own game
Regrettably, are not the same
Jail stifles journalistic aim.

Fen said...

Judge Tatel, Patrick Fitzgerald, General Hayden, Representative Waxman, the CIA in their filing, ALL these people with access to the facts say she was covert and covered under the law in question

No they have not. Thats the problem.

The magic words we are all listening for are "Ms. Plame had covert status under the law as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act."

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/his_silence_was.html

Your silly flames only make you look all the more childish. If you have proof she had covert status under the law as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act then post it.

Fen said...

Until the administration proactively released her identity to the media, is there any evidence that anyone was inquiring at all about Wilson's wife's identity, just based on his op-ed?

Yes. Wilson's op-ed caused a sensation. The media was all over him. He remarked to them that, according to CIA, the VP's office sent him to Africa. That caused consternation amoung reporters b/c Wilson was already a known Bush critic who was supporting Kerry's election. They wondered "Why would WH send an enemy on such a mission". So they called and asked.

You continue this argument that any enterprising reporter would have discovered her covert status, but based on what?

And the WH answered we didn't send Wilson, CIA did. When asked why CIA chose him, they answered his wife works there, she recommended him. Wilson was spreading disinformation in his op-ed. WH had a legitimate reason to call him out as a liar.

Fen said...

when people are under oath concluding they are lying just to hurt Bush.

Plame is filing a civil suit. She has a book deal and movie interests. So she has motive, and her testimony conflicts with testimony from Senior officials at CIA, State, and WH. Its not unreasonable to question her credibility.

as long as there are examples pure stupidity as B and Fen et al, this country is in danger.

Indeed. You should probably shoot us both or send us to re-education camps.

B, Fen and others in this thread just make it up. I think we can conclude that liars lie for liars.

No. I'm posting facts. Your posting personal attacks. That speaks for itself.

AlphaLiberal said...

Having watched this hearing, i'd say the AP didn't accurately capture it in this statement, "She revealed little new information about the case,"

We know now beyond argument that she was covert. If she was not covert, then it should be a simple matter to prove she lied in testimony before Congress. And the very well-funded right wing would like nothing better to destroy her credibility.

So, with sworn testimony that she was covert, with the CIA having years ago caled for a criminal investigation which happens when agents are exposed, the rational conclusion is that she was covert until the Bush Administration exposed her.

The wingers need something more than histrionic exclamations of "was not!"

There was other news brought out, including the existence of several findings and memos that directly contradicted the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a whitewash by Senate Republicans.

AJ Lynch said...

David Walser said:
"I'm not sure why we are debating whether Ms. Plame "sent" her husband to Niger or not. Three facts came out in the Libby trial:

* Ms. Plame wrote a memo recommending her husband for a trip to Niger to investigate the rumors Iraq was seeking uranium.

* The date of her memo was February 12, 2002.

* The date VP Cheney first learned of the rumors Iraq was seeking uranium was February 13, 2002."

If David's fact are correct and accurate, it is ionic but possible that Plame's memo actually fortified Cheyney's suspicion that Saddam had WMD.

AlphaLiberal said...

Wow! Reading the comments here from the Bush loyalists, I'm reminded of a quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Here's an example from Bruce Hayden:
"Well, we still have to figure out then why the 9/11 commission concluded that she did recommend her husband. Maybe it was the memo she wrote..."

Bruce, try to find mention of Plame or Wilson in the 9/11 Report.

The Committee learned of other existing informaiton that discredits the whitewash job of the Senate Select Committee Report. This is on the way.

Naked Lunch said...

Fen
Any word from your crack researchers what the status was on those at the multi-year multi million dollar front group Brewster & Jennings that was working on WMD and nuclear proliferation intelligence? Could be this has nothing to do with Wilson or Plame huh? A meddlesome CIA front group always getting in the way. Whatever the rate, it's nice to know alot of conservatives think it's totally cool to out CIA agents and destroy intelligence networks at the CIA working on WMDs. Speaking of that book, they still haven't cleared part of it for security reasons - on top of not having diplomatic immunity overseas if captured, my guess is she was doing more than answering phones.

AlphaLiberal said...

Donald Trump:
"Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States. […] Everything is a lie."

And yet we have all these people repating all these Bush Adminstration lies. Loyal to a fault.

AJ Lynch said...

Paladian said:
"RC, you need to stop. Seriously. You destroy every conversation here. I don't know why Althouse is letting you trash her site with your increasingly poisonous comments, but if you keep it up, you won't have anyone left to defame and insult; all the decent commenters will stop coming here."

I disagree Palladian. I remember a bar where one customer got under everyone's skin but they finally turned him into a semi-lovable character and target for their jokes. Since he was a big Notre Dame fan with a booming voice, they nicknamed him IBM for "Irish Big Mouth". Let's have a contest to re-name Reality Check.

Paco Wové said...

At this point, what relevant facts are universally agreed upon? (Note: that means "everybody agrees this is true", not "everyone would agree with this if they would just stop being evil and stupid".

So far, I can come up with:

1. Plame worked for the CIA.
2. Armitage gave her name to Novak.
3. Novak confirmed this with Rove, and an CIA official, who (apparently mistakenly) said it was ok to use Plame's name.
4. ?

johnstodder said...

Good morning! Happy St. Pat's day.

I just found this link. The brownshirts over at The Corner pointed to it -- I forget which one, they all look brown to me.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

Please enlighten me on where all the lies are. I know you won't let me down!

johnstodder said...

Yikes, Alpha Liberal is relying on the credibility of Donald Trump!

Dude, there are a lot more credible people than Trump who will call Bush the worst president, like, ever. Bringing up Trump opens a can of worms like you wouldn't believe.

If you keep citing Trump, Rosie O'Donnell might develop a 'strange new respect' for Bush.

Fen said...

/ignore trolls

Alpha: We know now beyond argument that she was covert.

No, we do not:

Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA. But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NTEEAG0&show_article=1

Plame/CIA has not proven that she met the legal definition of covert (not "classified") under SEC 606 [50 U.S.C. 426].

AlphaLiberal: is there any evidence that anyone was inquiring at all about Wilson's wife's identity, just based on his op-ed?

"May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.

(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)

Here, unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson suddenly now claimed State Department officials should have known better than to have been duped by the forged documents that purported to prove a deal for uranium had been in the works between Iraq and Niger."

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

"...Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.

Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife would have been exactly as Armitage suggested to Woodward. Wilson told the panelists and reporters about Plame’s work at the CIA to give his radically new and dangerous story more credibility.

It’s highly probable Wilson used his wife’s position as a WMD analyst at the CIA to bolster his outrageous (and we now know fallacious) claims against a then popular President in a time of war."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

And re Plame's credibility:

/begins

"An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.

...she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor.

Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.

Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA.

In other words, she didn't recommend him or suggest him. Rather, it was a guy who walked by."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzFkNTA3ZDA4ZDcxNTQzNTc0N2FlN2RiYjk3NzhkMzA=

Fen said...

Freder: And those 16 words come back to what no one is disputing. Iraqi officials went to Niger in the late '90s and discussed trade with Niger (which the Nigeriens surmised probably meant that Iraq wanted yellowcake) and it never went farther than that.

No. You are confusing CIA intel with Euro intel.

CIA assumed yellowcake b/c that is Niger's only valubale export.

Euro intel has different sources that specifically state Iraq was negotiating to purchase yellowcake:

"Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill."

http://www.slate.com/id/2103795

monkeyboy said...

I do wish that the libs that seem so concerned for the sanctity of classified infomation would save some ire for Armitage, the LA Times and the NY Times. Both newspapers have blown secrets much more important than this.

AlphaLiberal said...

fen peddles a long-discredited argument:
"No. You are confusing CIA intel with Euro intel."

The "Euro Intel" alleging Iraqi purchases of yellowcake was based on forged documents
.

Stop using that example fen, unless you can show some other "intel" that wasn't forged.

You guys continue to use old, discredited arguments (to your own discredit). We can knock these arguments down, but you will move to another discredited argument until we come full circle back to the original discredited argument.

That's a chronic aversion to reality. Not healthy for people or countries.

The Exalted said...

But even if she didn't, she still has the problem that her husband knew of her CIA status, and apparently did so even before marriage. And then he went on to lie about his trip to Niger in the NYT. And the logical question was. why was a Clinton/Gore supporter being sent to Niger in the first place?

honestly, just what on earth are you talking about here?

its like you're completely insane. i wouldn't trust you to tie my shoes.

hdhouse said...

monkey boy...what is your point?...the subject is the whitehouse and persons in it outing valerie plame to get even with her husband for exposing their lies.

what that has to do with anything other than a corrupt and morally bankrupt administration is beyond me.

monkeyboy said...

Whatever the rate, it's nice to know alot of conservatives think it's totally cool to out CIA agents and destroy intelligence networks at the CIA working on WMDs.

Thats what I'm talking about. If you think this is a great chance to get the Bush administration, than fine, but the left should not claim to suddenly care about compromising sources. Especially since the LA Times was outing CIA at the same time and NY Times was destroying the economic front on the war on terror.

If the left wants to let Armitage off the hook because he doesn't hurt the prosident, then off the damned high horse.

johnstodder said...

Stop using that example fen, unless you can show some other "intel" that wasn't forged.

Wilson and other assume the forged Italian document is the sole basis of this incorrect view of Saddam's intentions in Niger. But even in the Wilson-friendly stuff I've been reading, there is a continual confusion of singular with plural. This includes the Wikipedia entry you point to. There are "documents" that purported to show... and then there is a forged "document." Does this mean all the documents were forgeries? Does this mean there was only one document, and it was forged? Or does this mean there were multiple documents, one of which was forged, but the others appear to be authentic?

I'm always suspicious, as everyone should be, when there is any pattern of the same grammatical mistakes or ambiguity about tense or number.

The pro-Wilson view seems to be there was no evidence for Bush's claim that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa, except for forged evidence and conclusions, for which there is no evidentiary foundation, from UK intel -- disbelieved by the CIA. Are you saying that is really all there is?

Trying to pin this down isn't easy.

Kirk Parker said...

MadisonMan,

"My good faith ... really plummeted with Mission Accomplished."

MM, I hope I'm just misunderstanding you, but it sure sounds like what you're claiming here is how easily you are mislead by the media. In fact (yes, it's a fact) the carrier on which Bush staged that little photo-op was returning from deployment, so it was quite correct to tell the ship and its crew that their mission was accomplished.

ChrisO said...

john stodder: If you said reporters could have found out that Plame worked at the CIA, rather than that she was covert, I stand corrected. However, it's a distinction without a difference. If she was working at Brewster Jennings as a covert agent, then revealing her employment with CIA would be tantamount to revealing her covert status. So again, if Plame attends a a petroleum conference in the middle east and a foreign intelligence service wants to know more about her, if they can easily find out that she worked at CIA, her cover is blown. So how exactly would they go about doing that?

You also say "back in 2003 there was a level of knowledge in the DC political community that she was a CIA employee." This is one of those "facts" that the right keeps repeating in hopes it will become true. Please back up that statement.

Ands b, your response is typical of what has caused so much misinformation to keep floating around about this issue. Saying "Unless you or someone can explain it to me - it is because either:" is your way of saying that if I can't tell you the inner workings of Fitzgerald's investigation, then by default any scenario you can dream up is true. There's a million reasons why prosecutors don't bring charges. Just because I'm not privy to Fitzgerald's thinking doesn't mean that your completely unsupported scenarios are true. The IIPA has been shown to be difficult to prosecute. Deciding not to prosecute is not the same thing as declaring somone innocent.

Fen, your sweetness and light post is worthless. When I see two huge mistakes in fact, followed by what turns out to be still another fanciful scenario with no factual basis, I stop reading. First, the article says that the 9/11 Commisson found that Wilson's wife sent him to Africa. Oops, I think you meant the Senate Intelligence Committe report. This statement is then backed up by a link to a Washington Post article by Bush apologist Sue Schmidt. Oops, Schmidt wrote her article without bothering to check the footnotes of the report, which make it clear that the entire commission did not arrive at that conclusion, only the Republicans. The Washington Post had to correct the article, but that didn't stop your fabulous source from quoting it. I also randomly clicked on a link saying Wilson was being talked about as Kerry's Secretary of State. oops. The article in the link didn't make a single mention of Wilson as Secretary of State. What a mess. And it turns out all of these links and quotes are there just to try and lend crdibility to a theory about Wilson revealing his wife's identity. But as usual with so much of the noise from the right, there isn't a single substantive fact to support the thoery. It turns out to be just one poster's fever dream. I asked if there was any indication that any reporter was looking into Plame's identity prior to the WH releasing her information, and you try to present "Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife?" So you guess at his motivation, that leads to your guess about his actions, and you present that as fact? No wonder you guys can't keep the story straight. Again, for anyone who actually understands the difference between fact and conjecture, it's clear that your arguments are almost breathtakingly fact free. Please try a little harder next time, OK?

johnstodder said...

Chriso,
The NY Times columnist, Nick Kristof, who broke the story of Wilson's trip to Niger (w/out mentioning Wilson but clearly referring to him) did so after he met with both Wilson and Plame, long before Novak's column came out.

I'm not suggesting Kristof told anyone else -- who knows? But it does suggest that until a later point in this story, Wilson and Plame were indifferent about whether anyone knew who his wife was and where she worked.

In Bob Woodward's interview with Richard Armitage, Armitage makes the same point. Another WaPo story that refers to Wilson's trip makes reference to the reporters dining with the then-anonymous envoy's family.

It just seems to me from all this that Wilson didn't think it was such a big deal for anyone to know his wife worked at the CIA and was a WMD expert; if anything, he acted as if it helped make his case.

Look -- I don't know what all this adds up to. But you and some of the other posters seem to think the issue of how Plame's status became known is simply cut and dried and everyone who questions the settled view that her covert identity was leaked in order to punish Wilson for daring to challenge BushCo is either a Republican troll or on drugs.

I'm neither. And it's not cut and dried. It looks to me like both the WH and Wilson thought it aided their respective cases to "out" Plame as a CIA official. The WH, specifically Cheney and his office, took up the cause via Libby, but Libby actually failed to get the WH spin out successfully, although he clearly tried. But by the time he was making the rounds, he ran into a lot of other reporters who already knew--somehow. Could it have been thru Rove? Could it have been thru Wilson? My money is on--both.

After Novak's column appeared, an opportunistic Wilson feigned outrage at the "leak" and got many to believe it was retribution. That did more damage to Bush's side than the original op-ed. The ferocity with which the anti-Bush activists cling to the original intepretation of this story despite some evidence to challenge their interpretation is a sign of how important this particular "narrative" has become.

MadisonMan said...

Kirk, the photo of the president in a flight suit just crystalized in my mind that this administration was more interested in imagery than in actually pursuing the fight in Iraq.

Subsequent news has shown that they got in WAY over their heads.

AlphaLiberal said...

You know, even Bob Scheiffer came out against the political purges of US Attorneys..

Oh, wait this is the "exposing a covert CIA agent thread," scandal thread not the "politicizing law enforcement" scandal thread.

So many scandals to keep track of!

Fen said...

alpha: Oh, wait this is the "exposing a covert CIA agent thread," scandal thread not the "politicizing law enforcement" scandal thread. So many "scandals" to keep track of!

/fixed


freder: You guys continue to use old, discredited arguments (to your own discredit). We can knock these arguments down

...with a wikipedia entry. You're joking right? Wiki is good for baseline facts that are not in dispute, but since its community-edited, anything involving politics is open to mischief. Just look at how the online-Left has buried all LGF stories that are "digged". You'll need a better source than wiki if you're going to "discredit" me.

The Euro intel is separate from the forgeries. Its independent of the fakes. British intel still stands by that evidence, while accepting the other docs are fake. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Fen said...

/here it is again Freder, in case you missed it the first 3 times:

"Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill."

http://www.slate.com/id/2103795

The Exalted said...

ha, hitchens. ever realize he is the only peddling that crap? ever stop to wonder why?

johnstodder said...

"Crap" in the sense of false information? Or in the sense of something that buggers up the works for your position, as in "oh, crap, I forgot about that!"

Joe said...

There's something about the entire Plame deal that has bugged me from the beginning. The week the story broke I was listening to NPR--I think, think, it was the Diane Ream political Friday show. I also seem to recall one of the reporters was Nina Totenberg, but I may be mistake. At any rate, Nina (I think) commented the story had no legs because, "everyone knew she worked for the CIA." The other reporters agreed.

I've since heard various reporters deny any of this was said, but I heard it live. I may have the names and program wrong, but I did hear a washington insider reporter make the claim that she already "knew" Plame worked for the CIA when Novak "broke" the story.

Does anyone else remember this, preferably with better details?

Fen said...

exalted: ha, hitchens. ever realize he is the only peddling that crap? ever stop to wonder why?

No, I'm wondering how you could claim "only Hitchens" when its obvious from the same link that British Intelligence and Financial Times are also "peddling" it.

If your mental lapse wasn't due to Sunday wine, consider having a doctor look at that for you.

Fen said...

I may have the names and program wrong, but I did hear a washington insider reporter make the claim that she already "knew" Plame worked for the CIA when Novak "broke" the story. Does anyone else remember this, preferably with better details?

You may be thinking of Andrea Mitchell:

/begins [via JustOneMinute]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/plame/2006/01/andrea_mitchell.html

And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript not available publicly online):

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.