Daily Kos

The Plame Case Ain't What You Think

Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 09:35:30 AM PDT

Liberal Oasis has a piece up on the Plame case and Miller and Cooper. It reflects the common wisdom about what is going on, ie that someone in the administration leaked Plame's name to punish Joe Wilson for questioning the administration's story on WMD. While many liberals have embraced this story I strongly suspect it is completely mistaken, a confabulation of administration revisionism and Joe Wilson's ego. The real story is a bit more interesting and explains why leaking Plame's name probably isn't a crime and why some folks in the administration may be in legal trouble anyway, and why Cooper and Miller's testimony is so important. Hint: its about the Downing Street Memos
Here is how Liberal Oasis characterizes the Plame leak:

It was the act of a White House official trying to punish a whistleblower (Plame's husband Joe Wilson, who challenged Bush's truthfulness in accusing Saddam of trying to obtain nuclear material), and in turn, intimidate potential whistleblowers.

certainly this is the story that Wilson has been telling. I'm not sure whether he believes it or thinks it is the best spin to get media coverage, but I'm pretty sure it is wrong and has confused most people about the real story.

To understand that you need to get past Wilson's ego and realize that he is a bit player in this drama, and his wife Valerie Plame has a leading role. We just never see her on screen.

All the attention has focused on Plame as victim, the CIA operative whose safety has been threatened and career compromised by being "outed" But most folks ignore her then current role, as analyst at the CIA WMD desk. Now the current revised history from the Bush folks is that the CIA is responsible for overstating Saddam's WMD capabilities. But we know better. To understand this case you need to recall the political and intelligence context of the period just before and after the start of the war.

As confirmed by the Downing Street Memos, Bush was determined to take out Saddam, and the administration was "fixing" the intelligence to provide a justification. Unfortunately the CIA wasn't helping very much. While "everyone" "knew" that Saddam had WMD, the actual intelligence we had was really poor. Experts were sure that the evidence we ended up seeing like the aluminum "centrifuge tubes" for uranium enrichment, the Niger documents and the mobile biological labs were bogus, and the CIA didn't trust the human intelligence from Chalabi's gang of informers.

Since the CIA was shooting down reasons for war as fast as Chalabi could make them up, the Bushies (paticularly Cheney and Rumsfeld) set up the Office of Special Plans at DOD to "stovepipe" the good stuff and package it for public and international consumption. There were reports of "war" within the intelligence community between the CIA regulars and the prowar DOD. Plame was a top CIA WMD analyst. She was one of the generals on the other side.

Now the timing of the Plame leak is important. When he War began in March even skeptics expected Iraq had some WMD stockpiles. While there was some surprise that none were used, we saw throughout the fighting reports about potential exposure. When Bush declared Mission Accomplished on May 1 the official line was still that we expected to find large caches which were hidden before the war. The administration was counting on those discoveries to justify their manipulation of intelligence before the war.

Wilson's story started to reach the public in early June when it was reported that the CIA had a negative report on the now discredited Niger memos a year earlier. It blew up in early July when Wilson went public, and Novak published his column outing Plame on July 14 - Mission to Niger

At the time the administration was flush with success and still confident that they would find illegal weapons. They were sorting Washington into good guys (who supported the war) and bad guys (who questioned it). When Wilson came up they asked around "Who is this guy" and learned he was married to a CIA WMD analyst. That made him a bad guy, so they share the news with Novak, as a way of discrediting Wilson. It wasn't about retaliation, it was about tarnishing Wilson by tying him to the antiwar faction at CIA. The White House knows Plame as an analyst who refused to support their prowar view. They have been fighting these internal battles for months; now that they have won the war those Saddam lovers are out. I doubt anyone even thought about her being covert.

To get a flavor of where the White House was going see this WSJ editorial from October

'Stupid' Intelligence Some of our spooks simply oppose Bush administration antiterror policy. Friday, October 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT If there's a silver lining to the controversy surrounding the Valerie Plame "outing," it's that an increasingly poisonous dispute over counterterrorism policy has been outed along with her. We're talking about the disagreement between the Bush Administration and many of the career intelligence officials at the State Department and the CIA.
Josh Marshall noted at the time that the White House was climbing out on a limb that had already been cut off.
Take a look at the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal today. I'd summarize their argument as follows … "Fine, maybe this leak did occur. But let's not let these small points obscure the big point: the war between the White House and the CIA. Once the public sees that battle for what it is, they'll side with President Bush." In part, I agree: the war between the White House and the CIA is the big story. It's the feud from which this law-breaking springs. But pushing this story out to this larger policy battle isn't going make things any better for them, only worse. Because they've already lost that battle. They just don't realize it yet. There's a cartoon from years ago --- I think from the New Yorker, but perhaps from somewhere else --- in which there's a guy sitting at his desk and he's just had his head sliced off. Only the slice came so fast and clean that his head is still sitting there on the stump of his neck. He's thinking everything's fine. He'll only find out there's a problem the first time he tries to move. That's where these folks are right now.
Fast forward a year and things have changed. The War isn't looking like a slam dunk political winner, no WMD have been found, and folks are pointing fingers about how we could have been so wrong. The last thing in the world the Bushies want is an examination of the intelligence war between CIA and DOD. No indeed turns out it was actually CIA all along that was pushing the WMD story and the White House only doing what they thought they must in response to the flawed intelligence.

So when Patrick Fitzgerald shows up to investigate the outing of a CIA operative, the White House folks have a problem. They can hardly explain that they inadvertently outed an agent because they wanted to link Wilson to a faction at CIA that thought there were no WMD because, well, that would mean the White House had manufactured intelligence to take us into an unnecessary and increasingly unpopular war. After all they were now blaming CIA for OVERstating the threat from Iraq's WMD.

What did they tell Fitzgerald's investigators? What was their Grand Jury testimony. Bet it was pretty hard to come up with a consistent story that wasn't a political disaster. How many lied?

What started as a potential case of intentionally leaking the identity of an agent has now become about perjury and obstruction of justice in an attempt to conceal White House involvement in fixing the intelligence that led to war. Cooper and Miller were all over the prewar intelligence beat, so they become keys to understanding how the White House went from propagandists fighting CIA skeptics over WMD to triumphal victors haranguing their doubtors to well meaning victims of bad intelligence. The Plame disclosure happened right in the middle of the transformation, which means that it draws attention to both the WH role in the fixing of intelligence and its efforts to deny that role.

Fitzgerald needs the reporters to contradict whatever whitewash the WH has come up with for this mess. Its not just the identity of the source, it is what the WH was saying and when that will show that they lied to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury to cover up their manipulation of and lying about prewar intelligence. This is what happens when the administration's Orwellian alteration of history occurs in a venue where lying is a crime and providing talking points is conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 314 comments

  •  It may have been an effort to kill (4.00 / 14)

    several birds with one stone.  Wilson could be right that punishing him was a motive, and the destruction of Plame could also have been a motive.

    "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

    by Thistime on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 09:41:23 AM PDT

    •  I agree I think that Rove is the type (4.00 / 6)

      to bloody anyone's face any way that he thinks is going to be effective. Outing Joe Wilson's wife was one way. At the time that Wilson wrote that editorial, no one else had really come forward and said that this administration was full of shit. He was the first to say it and I think Rove went nuts with anger that someone would do that to him-esp in the NY times newspaper. Maybe it did have something to do with the war between the CIA and WH as well, but I think Rove was royally pissed off at Wilson. That the wife worked for the CIA was gravy.
    •  Need to Get It Public (4.00 / 4)

      I see the most dire need to get this in PUBLIC court.  My biggest fear is it will never be brought into the clear light of day in ANY fashion.

      There was obviously a war between the CIA and Bushco.  Intelligence is never (or hardly ever) a clear cut thing.  It's always open to interpretation (a la Bolton).  What's hiding in all of this is the evidence that the DSM brings to focus.  Bushco was cherry picking the intelligence to justify their actions to the public.  (As my neighbor predicted LONG before the Iraqi war started - you don't move 200,000 troops to the border and then NOT attack, it's a done deal.)

      We need to use this whole mess to bubble more bits and pieces of truth to the public.  This will not result in convictions, but it will start the ball rolling for some House investigations with real teeth.

      •  just a thought... (none / 0)

        Did (does) Bush perhaps think that he should be able to "rule" the CIA since his Daddy was once the head of the agency? And maybe he thought he had "dirt" on some of the CIA people from past work with Daddy?
        Regardless, the bull-in-a-china-shop modus operandi of Bush towards anything and anyone perceived to be "in his way" is one of these days going to come back to bite him in the butt. And I hope the bite comes in the form of Impeachment and criminal charges. He deserves no less.

        "Never, never, NEVER give up!" --Winston Churchill

        by rioduran on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:45:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  my post in a Conyers thread: (none / 0)

        strength in numbers... (none / 0)

        ...the Democrat Motto for '06 and '08, and on!

        PS- to be certain what minutes you need to correlate, aside from DSM, trace the futures of BP oil.

        It should match the Blair DSM timeline of opposition by MI6 behind the scenes to the flip-flop for their statement Bush cites in his State of the Union address.

        Without holding shares one cannot get such returns on their official site.(BP)

        Still the timeline key times between DSM material and any corresponding business links will be within a week of Blair's two speeches against the Iraq and in support of America.

        The timeline will be witihn the standard negotiation time for communciation along standard state channels, expedited somewhat by the rush to war and digital pace. As well will be the roughly three day time between when markets reflect the value of internal workings that result in big deals for companies.

        So there will be big moves on BP's board, and for certain by the time the full trade transaction curve on demand is met. The big moves indicate when the deals were undertaken, three days before when the deals probably went down.

        Sept. 24, 2002
        Document
        British Prime Minister Tony Blair's 50-page dossier details evidence of a burgeoning weapons program in Iraq.

        January 2003
        Document
        Second British Dossier on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

        "In that time frame- Sept.24th 2002 to Jan.2003 Tony Blair made his move with the BP concessions increase.

        Let's say September, because this appearance really helped solidify the Rove plan- "Run on the War".

        The Downing Minutes came in response to this, there was probably a big session of head-butt backroom maneuvers and Blair's statement simply added fuel to the embers of reasoned dissent.

        The Downing Minutes most likely detail internal reaction to this September 24th speech.

        The date for one such documents proves this:

        The secret Downing Street memo

        SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

        DAVID MANNING
        From: Matthew Rycroft
        Date: 23 July 2002
        S 195 /02

        cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

        IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

        Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

        "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

        John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

        C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

        CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August."

        Others have tried to posts in here saying the timeline is after the war's start.  

        Don't let the disinformation start. It dealt with response to Blair's prewar hype of the Spetember report. Why September? Election time, and 9-11 rememberances, Patriot Day.

        A classic appearance on a Karl Rove timeline, with Blair's lies becoming the sell point.

        Look for any pegged futures numbers/stockprices off BP from the last week of October, to the September dossier.

        Most likely this was the sell point, then amajor correction as MI6 refuted things in closed doors and the traditional channels moved. There will be another BP spike after such reaction that will pretty much be the moneyshot for Tony Blair's bargain on Iraqi Concessions.

    •  Is the CIA responsible for the leak of DSM? (none / 1)

      It's worth thinking about, given the war between CIA and the Bush administration. Note that recently the Bushies have restored some power to the CIA in the so-called intelligence shake-up. It could be Bush/Rove's way of saying, apres leaks on DSM (with help of British assets), "Ok, ok. We get it. Now let up on us. No more leaks, huh?"

      See 6/29 Boston Globe article on this:

      The [new intelligence overseas] office will be modeled after a [presidential] commission [on intelligence] recommendation to establish a Human Intelligence Directorate within the CIA that would be in a position superior to the Directorate of Operations, which now runs the agency's clandestine operations abroad, officials said.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:52:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good Post (4.00 / 3)

    Recommended...

    I guess the understanding that you point out is probably implied in the whole matter. It's helpful to point out the perjury. Are we not privy to Fitzgerald's investigation details: ie who exactly was questioned under oath?

    I'd be curious to know more details there.

    Thanks.

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 09:42:55 AM PDT

  •  Tip Jar and blatant whoring (3.98 / 165)

    If you think this is persuasive give me some love and recs. Any good links to fill out the story would be appreciated as well
    •  Please see my post below, I meant... (none / 1)

      it as a response to your tip jar comment and am afraid you might miss it unless I direct you to it here.
    •  Holy mother of god! (4.00 / 11)

      Did you come up with these realisations all on your own? My GOD, the insight! I'm simply... gobsmacked.

      Consider my gast... flabbered.
                                      -Janeane Garofalo

      •  I was hoping this was snark... (4.00 / 5)

        ...then I saw you recommended this turkey.

        (?????)

        I find this diary absolutely ridiculous. It's about 99% conjecture and 1% research. It reeks of an infantile desire to "scoop" an issue - ironically so, since a scoop usually involves the presentation of fact. It makes, in the end, very little sense - especially in its assertion that the Plame outing was a preemptive strike against future "Downing Street Memos" - and, on top of that, it's badly written.

        Shall I explain?

        It wasn't about retaliation, it was about tarnishing Wilson by tying him to the antiwar faction at CIA.

        The diarist's entire argument hinges on the notion that Valerie Plame belonged not only to an "antiwar faction" within the CIA, but one whose existence the Bush Administration deemed a bigger problem than the fact that Joe Wilson had just exposed a huge lie in The State of the Union Address and was about to tell the entire nation that he'd warned the administration repeatedly to retract the "Africa" statement or he'd do it for them.

        When has it ever been established that Plame had been part of an antiwar faction within the CIA? I'd love to see a link to this. I've written extensively about both antiwar and ideologically neutral "factions" that existed during the run-up to war and I have to say the notion that an undercover operative - whose own family thought she worked for the State Department - would jeapordize her cover by taking any position on the war strikes me as odd.

        She had been a noc - non-official cover- at the time her name was leaked, a covert status CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack calls "the holiest of holies." She was not, as the diarist claims, "an analyst at the WMD Desk." Her boss, Alan Foley, might have been a desk jockey. Plame was not and was clearly in no position whatsoever to allow her opinions to filter out of the Agency. The threat to the Bush Administration's war plan, you see, existed only to whatever degree to which unfavorable information reached the public. Was Valerie Plame going to pull a Karen Kwiatkowski, go public and land herself in prison?

        In all the chaos since the start of the war, it's easy to confuse what we now know about the DOD/CIA schism with what was known in July of 2003. Three and a half months had passed since the invasion and no WMD had been found. The Bush Administration was realizing that it had a vested interest in painting a reverse picture of its relationship with the CIA. Not the one where "antiwar factions" - represented, as the diarist claims, by people like Plame - had told them the WMD stuff was bogus. Rather, the one in which the Administration had proceeded in good faith on the "slam dunk" WMD case the CIA had given them, only to find out they'd gotten "bad intel."

        Honestly, in July of 2003, as the first questions about when we were going to find WMD in Iraq began to suface, how could the Bush Administration possibly benefit from pushing the idea that Wilson shot them down because his wife represented an agency that didn't like the war?

        How?

        They were realizing at that moment that, if WMD weren't found soon, they were gonna need a fall guy and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet - Plame's Boss - was the perfect choice. Stand him up as the misinformed boob who sat behind Powell through all that bullshit at the UN and - whammo - poor Bush got suckered into a war by a bunch of overzealous pencil pushers who didn't have enough HUMINT in Iraq.

        And what better way to prevent future whistleblowers from blowing their convenient "bad intel" excuse than to demolish the first guy to poke holes in it. It was a warning. And outing Valerie Plame was just one part of their all-out assault on Joe Wilson.

        It just happens to be the part that got them in trouble.

        Democrats: For the health, prosperity and security of every single American.

        by alysheba on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 12:39:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I rated your comment high (none / 0)

          because it was interestiing and well reasoned.

          However, I also recommended this turkey because I have a taste for turkey.  

          I like to get all views on the table.  Somewhere in there then will lie the truth.  No?

          the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

          by the ratprick on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 01:15:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Excellent rebuttals. (4.00 / 2)

          I recommend many diaries -- even some really offensive ones. Sometimes the reason I recommend a diary is because I find the ensuing discussions valuable enough that I think people might benefit from them.

          God knows I haven't seen many truly good Israel/Palestine diaries -- but I always recommend them in the hope the discussion will be wide-ranging...

        •  Wrong ratio. (none / 0)

          "What started as a potential case of intentionally leaking the identity of an agent has now become about perjury and obstruction of justice in an attempt to conceal White House involvement in fixing the intelligence that led to war. "  

          That rings true.  

          That said, I think you are wrong that this diarist is 99-1% speculation.  It is 100% speculation because only Fitzgerald has the facts right now.

          "And what better way to prevent future whistleblowers from blowing their convenient "bad intel" excuse than to demolish the first guy to poke holes in it. It was a warning. And outing Valerie Plame was just one part of their all-out assault on Joe Wilson."

          Also speculation.  Also rings true.

          These people can walk and commit treason at the same time.  All their treasonous criminal acts can be fact...if/when we see if Fitzgerald is in Bush's pocket, waiting for a plum appointment or such, or if he is going to deliver Bush's head on a golden platter.  (Not to mention Rove getting frog-marched....ah the day that occurs, what a day...)

        •  Well... (none / 0)

          That WAS quite a snark.

          "It makes, in the end, very little sense - especially in its assertion that the Plame outing was a preemptive strike against future "Downing Street Memos" - and, on top of that, it's badly written."

          Well I guess I had better cop to badly written else you wouldn't have completely missed the point.

          I am not suggesting this was "a preemptive strike against future "Downing Street Memos""; in fact just the reverse, that when Wilson's story broke the WH hadn't digested just what the implications of finding no WMD in Iraq would be, and were still in triumphant I told you so mode. That the Plame outing was in the context of a planned purge of CIA to cleanse those folks who had refused to back administration claims about Iraq and WMD. Chief among those was apparently Alan Foley, Plame's boss.

          Sy Hirsch did a lot of reporting about nearly open warfare between the career CIA WMD folks and the DOD stovepipe gang over these issues and it was widely reported that CIA and State both viewed taking out Saddam as sheer idiocy in the context of the war on terra. If you have paid any attention at all to the modus operandi of the Bushies you would understand that made them at least objectively pro Saddam and probably little short of traitors in the eyes of the WH. So by anti war I don't mean marching in the streets waving banners. I mean flagging bogus claims in Cheney speeches at least and possibly whispering anonymously to Sy Hirsch. With connection to both Foley and Hirsch I am sure Plame was viewed as untrustworthy even if the WH had no direct dealings with her.

          I don't know where you get your claims about Val Wilson's job at CIA at the time she was outed. I have read most of the public material and I have the impression that she was no longer working in the field and had shifted primarily to an analyst role, though there is some thought that was still running agents abroad. In several reports she was described as an analyst, and in one it is reported that an assistant in the Bush NSC had worked closely with her on WMD issues. I read the evidence to suggest that while she was still NOC she was moving into a management and analytic role and the primary security concerns involved exposing current agents she had dealt with in the past. For what its worth I think the effort to spin that into a claim that her outing was no big deal is preposterous; for all I know it crippled our WMD intelligence in the MidEast. The whole of my point is that given her shift from a field operation role to a management and analyst role, it is possible that she was known as the latter to the handful of national security people all with top security clearance at the WH.

          Finally to the timing issue. Apparently word that Wilson was talking reached the WH in March, and they made plans to deal with it. Apparently they were shopping Plame's name at the end of June/early July. The serious search for WMD was just beginning at that point and we we regularly hearing about potential discoveries of stockpiles. Moreover the Bushies weren't looking to cover their collective ass they were kicking butt and taking names in the months after Mission Accomplished. Note the WSJ bit from October and you see they were still pushing the disloyal CIA line. It wasn't until late in 2003 that they began to back off claims that large quantities of WMD were still to be found and Dean made big noise as the only Dem Presidential candidate willing to suggest that the war wasn't a great idea.

          So yes, as you note, in July of 2003, the FIRST questions about when we were going to find WMD in Iraq began to surface. That is just after they named Plame and started pushing reporters to investigate a disloyal proSaddam clique at CIA. My hypothesis is they meant to tie Wilson to a broader group at CIA but didn't realize that in naming Plame they were outing a NOC. That that two by four hit them in the face just about the same time they figured out that the WMD weren't gonna show up after all. And that it actually worked to their advantage at least for a while because they were able to drop the whole matter of the CIA denying their WMD claims and let the focus shift to the narrow (if ugly) claims that Plame was outed to punish Wilson.

          Following this line of reasoning, the problem for the WH is that the "innocent" explanation for the leak, that they were going after a group at CIA that didn't support their WMD claims, became politically toxic almost as soon as the scandal broke, so the WH pretty much had to let Wilson run with the retaliation angle. Which gets to the real point of my post - that Fitzgerald is deposing a whole bunch of senior WH people about how they were handling the WMD issue politically just at the moment when they switched from blaming CIA for not supporting their claims to blaming them for inflating them. Some of those folks have testified under oath to Congress about those same issues. Plus they have to concoct some reasonable explanation for outing Plame that aint a capital crime. That is a lot of lies to keep straight, especially when some are contradictory. And to top it all off they were talking to reporters straight through so there is contemporaneous independent evidence about what the were saying at least.

          I really don't understand why some people think I am acting as a Republican tool here. If the CW is right and say Scooter Libby or Bolton burned Plame to get back at Wilson it is a pretty small victory. Most of that damage is done. But if Fitzgerald has half the senior security and political guys in the WH on perjury and obstruction for lying about their efforts to fix the WMD intelligence that led us to war and their subsequent efforts to unfairly blame the CIA now that is a report I would like to read.

    •  The narrative overlay (4.00 / 5)

      that you put on these events is masterful.  Whore away if you like.

      Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. --Springsteen

      by gaff98 on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:20:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very ver y interesting (4.00 / 12)

      I find your analysis very interesting, and indeed plausible.  However, there are a couple of issues for which there is no proof in the public record:

      1. As a CIA Analyst, Valerie Plame was one of those who vigorously argued that there was no proof of any WMD's in Iraq

      2. As a CIA Analyst, Valerie Plame was known by Senior Admin Officials as one of those who vigorously argued there was no proof of any WMD's in Iraq

      If those facts are true (and I have no idea if they are), then you have a plausible and interesting theory.  However, I am still a bit unclear about the exact natures of the perjuries that would have made by senior administration officials in this scenario.  What false statements under oath, exactly, would the senior administration officials have made to prosecutors in the grand jury under this scenario?  Is that something that could be developed in more detail.

      Again, fascinating work. . .

      •  Some problems (4.00 / 3)

        As I read the comments downthread, I am having more doubts.  For instance, SusanG knocks some pretty big holes in your theory here.  Again, I admire your diary for its thoughtfulness and original analysis; however, I am far from persuaded that your version is in accord with reality.
      •  I'd give you a "4" but for ... (4.00 / 6)

        ...some reason, I can only rate about half the time.

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 12:33:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Issues (4.00 / 2)

        My starting point was the public speculation that Fitzgerald's couldn't bring charges for outing an agent because the leaker didn't know Plame was covert. If that is true then the CW makes no sense. Why would leaking her identity constitute retaliation if she wasn't covert. And how could a WH political guy know about Plame without knowing she was a covert agent.

        Put that in the context of the war between the CIA WMD desk and the WH politicos and an obvious answer appears. They knew Plame as an analyst and saw her as part of the proSaddam faction at CIA. It makes no sense to out a covert agent as political retaliation, witness the firestorm they created. But it would sure fit this WH and the mood in Spring 2003 to smear Wilson as part of a treasonous clique of Saddam supporters at CIA.

        I don't know that that is right but it fits the facts I do know and the speculation coming from Washington, while the CW just doesn't add up.

        •  I also recall (none / 0)

          the spin when all this originally came out that she "wasn't a covert agent; she was only an analyst."

          It's a plausible connection of the dots. It will be interesting to see how things play out...but if, as speculation in some other diaries here is right, Bolton was the leaker, I'll still go with the "revenge" motive as primary.

          " 'Vox populi, vox Dei' translates as 'How the hell did we get into this mess!?' "---Robert Heinlein (accuracy of quote not guaranteed)

          by mirrim on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:07:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  she *was* a covert agent (3.83 / 6)

            She was an analyst at the time of the leak, but I think she was still under non-official cover (NOC), which is not just run-of-the-mill covert, but the highest level of covert operative.  Remember the "NOC list" from Mission Impossible?  They didn't set up a front company to provide her cover for nothing.

            Even if the other reason of the diary holds up -- and it makes a lot of sense to me -- outing Valerie Plame was still a crime.

            how can i turn italics off in my signature?

            by fightcentristbias on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 06:42:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In Novak's column when he outed her (none / 0)

            he called her a covert agent. Later, if I remember correctly, he backtracked and said that she was just an analyst, that he used the word "covert" loosely and that to him, covert meant anything. The only way that this makes sense to me (i.e. someone going after Plame) was because she had been a covert agent. Remember when Chris Matthews said that he spoke with Rove about Plame, and then he called Wilson and said " I just spoke with Rove and they are going after your wife" ? Why Plame if it wasn't in retaliation to Wilson's letter to the NY Times? Why not any other employee in the CIA-esp one that was better versed in the Middle East if this was just a war between the WH and the CIA?
            Fitzgerald may have had problems proving that Plame was KNOWINGLY outed as a undercover agent, and couldn't make that charge stick, so he's going after perjury instead.
            •  NYT documentation (none / 0)

              If any of the documentation shows the use of the word or label "covert", Novak's sunk.

              It means he deliberately repeated what he'd been fed, that he tried to cover it up.

              I have a very, very hard time believing that Novak accidentally used the word "covert".  What a colossal slip from a person whose business is word craft.

    •  It's an interesting theory (none / 1)

      but I am still convinced that the Bush admin knew that they wouldn't find any WMD.

      I believe this is how they gambled: the invasion & the occupation would be such shinning success that if anyone complained about the discovery of WMD, they could be made to appear as carping and irrelevant.

      The only thing that has made the WMD issue relevant popularly is the stiff Iraqi resistance and the number of USA casualties.  That's what makes Americans ask, "Why did we enter this war?"

      This was a combination of neocon arrogance (we will easily defeat them & they will throw flowers on our paths) and Rove's arrogance that the lack of WMD issue could be handled later propagandistically by focusing on the invasion & occupation's success.  

      Dana Garrett http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/

      by Dana Garrett on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:36:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But why didn't they (none / 0)

        at least, send in special ops before the war and plant WMD evidence? Wouldn't that have avoided any questions about WMD being in Iraq? There were certainly special ops in there anyway.
        •  Because (none / 1)

          It was never WMD, Terrorism, or a brutal regime. It was the grudge match. Doesn't everyone know that we are merely pawns in this icky Freudian/Shakespearean reality known as I'm better than Daddy.

          ..he tried to kill my Dad...George W. Bush

          •  Nevertheless (none / 0)

            I assumed there would be "planted" WMD, and the shock of learning that the Administration never even bothered with that has yet to really sink in.

            See, the thing is, Bush et al HAD to have believed there were WMD, else they simply would have fabricated them.  On the other hand, they've had plenty of time to do so in the last year, as well; after learning that there were no WMD, that is.  It just doesn't make sense.

            The only scenario that makes sense is that Bush knew there were no WMD and didn't want us to think there were any anyway.  Why?  Who knows what the real plan is, anyway?  Maybe the goal all along was to select out disloyal liberals -- and the lack of WMD has done this.  Those who still support the war have shown themselves to have the kind of loyalty BushCo needs; the rest can now safely be liquidated.

            Save a spotted owl: eat a logger

            by Tlacolotl on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 11:15:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Too risky (none / 0)

          Why plant WMD and take the chance of being caught planting WMD if a cakewalk in Iraq would make the issue of no WMD in Iraq irrelevant?

          Dana Garrett http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/

          by Dana Garrett on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 05:17:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Plame case is now on perjury over intelligence fix (none / 0)

  •  Judy Miller is going to be... (4.00 / 14)

    bucking for sympaythy... We should nip that in the bud.  A meme for reporters description of Miller: "Miller, who frequently reported on Iraq's alleged stockpiles of WMDs."
    •  Judy Miller Reporting (4.00 / 5)

      And if Ecomaniac is correct, the question of Miller might be "What did you know about WMD and when did you know it?"  i.e. Judy Miller Knew all along (or, atleast, for the most part) that the WMD meme was false, but reported it any way.

      That's why she doesn't want to testify before the Grand Jury, not that she want's to "protect her source" that outed Valerie Plame.

      Notice: This Comment © ROGNM

      by ROGNM on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:01:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More Complex (3.75 / 4)

        Let's not go jumping past what we know.

        Bill Clinton, among others, believed that Saddam retained some WMD capability.  It's quite a leap to give Judith Miller culpability for believing what was easier to believe.  Most of us probably believed that the capability Saddam possessed was aging and not a threat to America, but it was hard to believe that if in fact he still had some capability in 1998 he would not rebuild to some very limited degree without the presence of inspectors.

        The administation people are intentionally exaggerating in 02/03 because 1) Chalabi says the weapons are there 2) They truly believe they are there, but we have no proof 3) The weapons were there before, so of course they are there. 4) The administation believes that if one story is true about Saddam's WMD capabilities, that would be enough to justify their effort.

        Judith Miller's Deep Throat was the entire administration.  If she breaks the Plame story, it probably reveals her source for most of her other WMD stories.  I believe she is a fool for spouting neo-con propaganda without questioning it, but she did not run the Plame story, Novak did.  She may be a gullible sap, but its hard to believe she didn't think she was reporting the real facts.

        •  "Beliefs" (4.00 / 20)

             None of us had any business "believing" one thing or another about the capacity of Saddam Hussein's Iraq for possessing biological or chemical weapons (it was manifest from an early point that there were no nuclear weapons there at all, hence the propagandistic use of the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction").  I never "believed" anything about them: what I always said was that they might exist, or might be a fevered imagination of the neoconservatives, but that there were no grounds for going to war and killing thousands on the basis of a supposition.  It was important not to believe but to know.  That is why there were inspectors.  Leave it to the Bush Administration to conduct faith-based policies about things that they believe; Democrats should base their decisions on things that they know.
          •  Yep ! (none / 0)

            Right you are, sir.

            I've worked for 20 years as a surgical nurse at the University of Michigan medical center.  I can tell you that you don't try to take out brain tumors you "believe" are there.  

            Nor would you ever operate on anyone without INFORMED CONSENT.  Imagine your brain surgeon telling you that he believed you had a brain tumor, proceeded to operate, and discovered you were tumor free.  He damaged your speech center, your left eye is blind and you no longer have control of your bladder.  But the good news is: no tumor.

            This is the best analogy that I can come up with for what has happened to the American public.

            the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

            by the ratprick on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 01:33:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Bill Clinton had no reason (none / 1)

          to believe such a thing either.  Especially if he had paid any attention to what the leaders of the inspections regimes had said, which was that they were gone and the programs ended.
          •  Agreed. And what's more... (4.00 / 9)

            ... this whole Daddy Bush-Bill Clinton kissyface act is getting creepy. I for one think he's being co-opted.. possibly because daddy Bush still has some of the goods on Bill. Who ain't no saint (notwithstanding any of your generally positive feeling about him).

            What dafcuk is this spit-swapping charade all about?  - at a time in which daddy bush's little boy Geroge is the most reviled, cheating, lying, manipulative, fascist...etc ad inifitum... antichrist EVER to inhabit the White House.

            Well?

            When dealing with the insane, the best method is to pretend to be sane. - Herman Hesse

            by jpwillis on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 12:16:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The question is ... (4.00 / 10)

              who's co-opting who in this little Clinton-Bush lovefest?

              My bets are on the Big Dog. He has a spouse with a future and he's about one of the most political savvy creatures on the planet.

              •  I also bet that Pappa Bush likes Clinton (4.00 / 4)

                better than he likes his own son.  Doesn't everybody???

                My new bumper sticker: Cheney-Satan '08

                by adigal on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:07:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Consider (none / 0)

                  Bill Clinton is Tom Hagen

                  W. is Fredo

                  Poor H.W.   He would have gone down in history as a mediocre one term president.  Now he will be known forever as the father of the Worst President ever.  Not to mention a guy who bailed out on his buddies, leaving them to a flaming death, during WWII.

                  Does anyone other than me think that Dan Quayle was given the Veep job to help lower the intellectual bar for the eventual rise of W. ?  Daddy knew best.

                  the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

                  by the ratprick on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 01:41:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Daddy Bush is one thing (4.00 / 2)

              But what is even creepier is Bill Clinton on Larry King Live supporting the War and saying he likes some of Bush the Junior's policies. He was simply gushing about ALL the Bush family, not just Daddy. But I also guess he likes Daddy More because Daddy dismissed the Cheney/Rummy plan to invade Iraq in 91 as right wing lunacy...Baby Bush subscribes and carries out right wing lunacy. But still Big Dog kissing up to George W seems insane but there could be more to it..wonder if he is making Hillary look more centrist by loving the Bush family.

              I do not know what is is, but it is some disgusting spectacle to watch.

              Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by wishingwell on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:21:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sure there is a bond we cannot understand... (none / 1)

              There's something to be said for being an ex-president...one of only three living ones. Is that right? Those two, plus Carter? Is Ford still alive? Does anyone care?

              I'm sure they both made good decisions and bad decisions...decisions they wanted to make and decisions they didn't want to make. Ones they were proud of and ones they regret. I'm sure they share some philosophies and differ in others.

              i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

              by missreporter on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:09:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  well, "belief" is one thing... (4.00 / 3)

            It is one thing to "believe" something, it is an entirely different thing to launch a damn war over it. As much as Clinton "believed" that Saddam had WMD, he did not stray far beyond the terms of the 1991 truce with Iraq. He bombed them when they locked onto our planes in the no-fly zone, he enforced sanctions, etc.

            Bush "believed" that Saddam had WMD, cooked intelligence to support it, and launched a war that to date has killed 1,700+ soldiers.

            BIG difference.

            "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."--PJ O'Rourke

            by David J on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:17:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yet apparently, he did (none / 0)

            Clinton told us to "Trust Tony's judgment" in his famous Guardian comment from March 18th 2003:


            On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.

            Once again, Blair stepped into the breach, with a last-ditch proposal to restore unity to the UN and disarm Saddam without military action. He secured US support for a new UN resolution that would require Saddam to meet dead lines, within a reasonable time, in four important areas, including accounting for his biological and chemical weapons and allowing Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interviews.

            This does not sound like Clinton had a lot of doubt about Iraq's abilities.

            Let's not get carried away - we may not have known that Saddam had WMD before the war, but many suspected it the same way they may suspect that either the Yankees or the Red Sox will be in the playoffs this year.

            He that would have been insolent and injurious in the woods of America,
            would not probably be much better in a throne.
            John Locke

            by Special Purpose Entity on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:44:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excellent, my point exactly (none / 0)

              And likewise, Miller -- although a pawn in the pocket of her neo-con sources -- had reason to suspect that, barring evidence that the weapons had all been destroyed or dismantled, there would still be some WMD found in Iraq.

              She's a pawn, but not a criminal.

              •  Miller is a criminal (none / 1)

                Aldrich Ames was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage in violation of 18 USC 794 and is serving a life term for outing US covert agents to the Soviets. Whoever told Miller that Plame was a NOC CIA Officer committed the same crime as Aldrich Ames by revealing that information. Miller witnessed a crime in progress, by stonewalling FitzGerald she committed the felonies of misprision of felony, and being an accessory after the fact. Had she reported what her "source" told her, then she would have committed conspiracy to commit espionage as well. Novak reported. He needs to be put in jail for life. Miller needs to go to jail for about 8 years.
    •  Miller Was A Reckless Stovepipe Who (4.00 / 2)

      might as well have been in the pay of the White House.  Her reputation was built and paid for with bogus intelligence which she had good reason to know was questionable.  However, she probably did not have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that it was FALSE.  There is a big difference here.  It doesn't mean that she may not have suspected that it was false, and reported it anyway.  But she had not necessarily the real expertise to know the difference.  She was acting as a scribe for the White House and Challabi.  Her payback was that they would point to her, and her editors knew that her stories should go on the front page to curry favor with the White House and regulators and advertisers who might see her reporting as critical to their interests.

      However, there is a big difference re her current predicament, and impending jail time for even peripheral involvement and protection of a government retaliating against the expression of rights that maintain our freedoms, and her right (and the New York Times' "right") to free speech.  That source of hers was breaking the law by releasing information that endangered Americans by destroying a critical WMD human intelligence network organized by a key clandestine intelligence agent, Vallery Plame.  There is NO DIFFERENCE between this and Heraldo's broadcasting the position of our troops during a battle.  In fact, What Miller Did was worse, because she is protecting people who placed us all ini much greater danger - and taht is NOT the same thing as protecting a whistleblower who is protecting the rights of the sovereign people in a democracy to not be lied to and to be protected from harm.

      Miller placed us all in harm's way, and continues to do so, in order only to protect her own career and bogus sources for bad stories that have conned the American public.  She deserves every day she will serve in prison - and MORE!

    •  Miller Meme... (none / 0)

      ...the agent for the Iranian spy,Chalabi....
  •  Good analysis, but.. (3.93 / 15)

    It can all be true, and leaking Plame's name is STILL a federal crime. I didn't see where you made the point that exposing a cia operative could be legal after all.

    It may just be the perfect storm of subjecting the administration to prosecution and exposing one aspect of the Iraq lies publicly.

    •  Yes, it is still a crime. (4.00 / 17)

      It looks like the motivations may be slightly different from what we have been led to believe, but the criminal act remains unchanged. The way I read it, Novak's column was prima facie illegal:

      US Code, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 421(b)


          Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information.

          Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      The general readership of Novak's syndicated column would, I'm pretty sure, qualify as being "not authorized to receive classified information."

      ~~~~~~~
      Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain

      Blogesque

      by OhioLen on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:37:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Intent... (none / 1)

        You should bold the next bit from your quote as well...

        "...knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States"

        This is becoming the crux of the matter - whether or not Novak or the other journalists knew that Plame was acting in an undercover capacity, and whether they intended to blow her cover by reporting as they did.

        One of the issues in the parent story is that most people in Washington didn't know that Plame was acting undercover, since she also had a public and widely known role as a WMD analyst, and thus they may have inadvertently blown her cover while trying to attack her "public" persona.

        •  I addressed this downthread. (none / 1)

          The first part which deals with "authorized access" to classified information is the key.

          ~~~~~~~
          Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain

          Blogesque

          by OhioLen on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:31:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I should also mention... (4.00 / 3)

          that the reporters in this story are bit players. Miller, Cooper and Novak aren't the real issue here. Their source is the issue. Furthermore, these reporters have no legal right to refuse to answer questions about said source since this is in the context of a national security criminal investigation:

          ...the great weight of authority is that newsmen are not exempt from the normal duty of appearing before a grand jury and answering questions relevant to a criminal investigation. At common law, courts consistently refused to recognize the existence of any privilege authorizing a newsman to refuse to reveal confidential information to a grand jury.
          - Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)

          ~~~~~~~
          Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain

          Blogesque

          by OhioLen on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:43:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But remember (none / 0)

          that Novak and the other "journalists" aren't being prosecuted for violating the covert agent law. Whether or not the hacks knew about Plame's clandestine cover isn't at issue. It's the direct targets of Fitzgerald's case (cough cough Libby cough Rove cough) where not-knowing may or may not apply.
          •  Since Novak isn't in contempt, (none / 0)

            a few possibilities emerge. Either he cooperated (which is my bet, Novak's being a coward and all) or he is a target, meaning he hasn't been called to testify. There is also the remote possibility that Novak was called and invoked a technicality known as the constitution to avoid testimony by refusing to incriminate himself. If he did that he wasn't offered immunity to force his testimony, which would mean the prosecutor wants to reserve the right to charge Novak.  

            "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

            by Thistime on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:11:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm betting that Novak spilled the beans, too (none / 1)

              and for the same reason you do.

              Gee, too bad Ken Starr isn't running the show, 'cause every freaking detail would've been leaked by now.

            •  From what I have heard... (none / 0)

              Novak co-operated... But that is just speculation on a blog somewhere based on his statements (I think a few have speculated on this?)... So it ain't quotable anymore than this whole "What if?" diary...

              I think he may actually be under a "gag" to "no comment" this sitch. (More speculation but on my part based on some of his statements: "I will tell all later"... Yes, I paraphrased/mocked Novak there, lol)

              Man... Kossacks developed this out the ying-yang while I was "gone fishing"... lol

              I am glad this diary got to the top!

              a few possibilities emerge. Either he cooperated (which is my bet, Novak's being a coward and all) or he is a target, meaning he hasn't been called to testify.
              by Thistime

        •  Please provide a link describing (none / 0)

          Plame's public work as a WMD analyst. Rush spent about a month on the subject, but he didn't say where he got his information.  

          "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

          by Thistime on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:59:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Today, Rush said Joe Wilson should go to jail (4.00 / 3)

            basically for being a publicity whore. He suggested Wilson and Plame didn't care about her secret identity because they did a photo spread in Vanity Fair (hey, Rush, wasn't that a year after her identity was ruined by Novak and someone inside the White House?).

            I love that this diary cracks open the question of motive. I think it's important that whatever details may be wrong in this diary, the central question remains: Have we been wrong about the real motive for outing Plame? Conventional wisdom suggests it was merely retaliation to get back at Wilson after the editorial refuting Bush's SOTU claim of Saddam trying to acquire yellowcake from Niger. What if the real reason was to get back at Wilson's wife and send a signal to the CIA that no one would be allowed to question the White House's manipulation of intelligence? What if this is part of the distortion of intelligence because Bush HAD to have his war?

            I think we need to quit saying Bush LIED. We need to focus on how the available intelligence was used, distorted and manipulated for which there is amble evidence including the DSM. We need to crack this open and question Bush's honesty with the American people and paint a case of corruption and lies that will taint the right wing in the eyes of the general public who is finally waking up from their post-9/11 fog and asking how we got here.

      •  but.... (none / 0)

        novack (and the rest of the right) has always 'poo poo'd' the alligation that he outted a COVERT agent..instead claiming valarie Plame was well known all over DC to be an agent...

        thats never been discussed....was she covert or well known.

        does that point make any difference in a criminal case?  

        and the department she worked in was directly related to our WAR on terrorism....

        does THAT have any bearing in a legal case?  does outing a covert CIA agent to the general public carry a greater punishment during wartime?

        "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" is NOT a coherent Mid-East Strategy Mr McCain

        by KnotIookin on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:27:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  contrary to Novak's lame attempts (4.00 / 2)

          to excuse himself, there is NO SUCH THING as a "well-known" CIA operative.  That's just total BS.
        •  My guess (none / 1)

          Is that the number of people who knew she was an agent compared to to the number of people who first learned it from Novak's column is miniscule.

          If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams

          by trillian on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:43:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She was not "well known". (4.00 / 4)

          According to Wilson, Plame was worried about what her friends and family would think once her cover was blown because she had "lied" to them for years to be able to carry her cover.  

          If she was supposedly so well known, you would think those around her would at the least be aware.  

          •  Not a well known AGENT (none / 0)

            Well known (or at least known) at the White House as an analyst at CIA that kept shooting down their precious justifications for war. There was a cold war going on between the White House and CIA over WMD intelligence. Plame was a player at CIA. Surely the players at the WH knew who she was (in this context), especially when her husband started spouting off. Easy to see how the little fact that she was also covert and running a string of agents might not have been as widely disseminated.
            •  HOw do you know that? (4.00 / 2)

              Well known (or at least known) at the White House as an analyst at CIA that kept shooting down their precious justifications for war.

              Is that in the public record?

              I hated Bush before it was cool.

              by daveriegel on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:14:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. (4.00 / 4)

              She shouldn't have been known at the White House. That's part of the problem here.

              To quote Wilson:

              "The intriguing question is: Who gave the name to the White House in the first place? Who in the intelligence community offered up my wife's name and why?

              This was not an agency leak. There might have been an individual within the agency who leaked, but not the CIA as an institution."

              •  Who did Cheney meet with? (none / 0)

                Who did Cheney meet with duuring his arm-twisting visits to Langley? It doesn't seem as though George Tenet and John Mclaughlin needed much persuading to tell the president what he wanted to hear.
              •  How they knew Plame (none / 0)

                My starting point was the public speculation that Fitzgerald couldn't bring charges for outing an agent because the leaker didn't know Plame was covert. If that is true then the CW makes no sense. Why would leaking her identity constitute retaliation if she wasn't covert? And how could a WH political guy know about Plame without knowing she was a covert agent?

                Put that in the context of the war between the CIA WMD desk and the WH politicos and an obvious answer appears. They knew Plame as an analyst and saw her as part of the proSaddam faction at CIA. Maybe her name came up during the back and forth about the WMD claims before the war. It ain't hard to imagine Cheney demanding to know who kept redflagging his perfectly good forged documents. Maybe they learned about her as part of investigating Wilson's claims. After he came out I'm sure the WH demanded to know who he was, how he got the gig and what his connection to CIA was. When it came out that his wife was CIA on the WMD desk they put two and two together and...

                It makes no sense to out a covert agent as political retaliation, witness the firestorm they created. But it would sure fit this WH and the mood in Spring 2003 to smear Wilson as part of a treasonous clique of Saddam supporters at CIA.

                I don't know that that is right but it fits the facts I do know and the speculation coming from Washington, while the CW just doesn't add up.

            •  Why do you keep saying analyst (none / 0)

              Do you watch nothing but Sean Hannity?

              She worked for a fake company who's cover was also blown by the leak. The CIA went ballistic when she was outed. This leak was much bigger than you imagine. Do I need to do a whole diary on what we really know about Plame and her cover?

              First the unnecessary bashing of the Ambassador and now using the Sean Hannity lie of "the analyst". I hope you're not my worst nightmare, a troll with a recommended diary.

      •  but.... (none / 0)

        novack (and the rest of the right) has always 'poo poo'd' the alligation that he outted a COVERT agent..instead claiming valarie Plame was well known all over DC to be an agent...

        thats never been discussed....was she covert or well known.

        does that point make any difference in a criminal case?  

        and the department she worked in was directly related to our WAR on terrorism....

        does THAT have any bearing in a legal case?  does outing a covert CIA agent to the general public carry a greater punishment during wartime?

        "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" is NOT a coherent Mid-East Strategy Mr McCain

        by KnotIookin on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:28:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wouldn't make a difference under (none / 1)

          certain circumstances. If the leaker verified Plame's classified status he is still criminally liable, if he could make that verification based on knowledge the leaker acquired through his secure position. In other words, he leaker had a duty to deny Plame's status even if everyone else knew it.

          I think.

          "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

          by Thistime on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:24:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes This Is True, They Must Protect Info. . . (none / 1)

            even after a leak.  

            See my post re Bolton, in this diary:  The link to the letter from the six Democratic Congresspersons indicates that the law requires that even after top secret information is published, it is the duty of government officials to protect that information.  The laws, executive orders, etc., are all outlined in that letter to the GAO demanding an investigation.

      •  Novak is not covered by the statute. (none / 1)

        The first part of the statute describes the individuals covered: those with authorized access to information regarding the identity of a covert operative (I don't see any way Novak fits into that category).

        The second part describes the prohibited action and places a requirement that the action was performed "knowingly," rather than some other legal standard, such as negligently or recklessly.  This is a very high standard to meet & would be the escape hatch for the administration official who actually leaked Plame to Novak.

        It would be very difficult to get a conviction under this statute.  It places no burden on the accused party to have performed any investigation into whether the agent was covert or not, a reckless standard would have done so.

        •  Convict the leaker (none / 0)

          Novak is not the leaker...he did not have access to classified information.

          So the question comes back to WHO told Novak and the other journalists. That is the person who should be prosecuted. Was it Rove?  Was it Cheney? Was it Bush? Was it someone else with access to classified information?

          The person with the loose lips should be identified and prosecuted.

          The motivation for outing Plame may become extreemly important as the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle come together over the war and WMD...but the person who ratted out Plame should be vigourously prosecuted to discourage such behavior in the future.

          Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

          by digital drano on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:09:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the actual code reference (none / 0)

        That makes it clear to me that the person we are after definitely has or had acces to classified information, therefore, even if Fitzgerald is 'fishing', at least he gets to use big hooks :)
      •  intent is not the issue (none / 1)

        for the person who named Plame to miller and Novack

        That person committed a crime, they are covering under Obstruction of Justice

    •  You're theorizing... (4.00 / 3)

      that this White House didn't think before it acted of all the ramifications of its actions? C'mon, you can't be serious!

      The Republican Party: Reinventing government, the same way they reinvented New Orleans

      by QuestionableSanity on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:43:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You say the leak probably wasn't a crime (4.00 / 11)

    but I don't see how you support that.

    You describe a slightly more nuanced view of the motivation behind the leak, which may very well be true, but it's still an intentional leak.  I don't see which facts in your narrative are supposed to make the act less criminal.

    •  Criminality (4.00 / 3)

      Not a lawyer but my understanding is that the leaker had to know that Plame was covert in order for it to be a crime. My hypothesis is that the WH saw her as an analyst, administrator type cause that is how they dealt with her. I'm sure there were lots of discussions at the WH about who at CIA was throwing cold water on the WMD stuff, and even more when the papers starting having CIA leaks questioning WH claims in the months before the war. Plus I doubt Rove's boys can even conceive of a female secret agent that isn't wearing black leather.
      •  Plame's Identity (4.00 / 4)

        I suspect you are wrong on this issue. I liked your posting a lot, though.

        I believe they, Karl, Scooter,et. al., not only knew the full story on Val Plame, but sought to, as said above, kill more than one bird with the stone they threw.

        To see Val's job as just an analyst is to not know her whole history, the network she developed and ran, and the fact that it wasn't just the analysts they were trying to intimidate. The directorate of operations was on their hit list as well, and guess who Val reported to?

        Obama is the more honorable person.

        by oofer on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just an analyst (none / 1)

          Sure didn't mean to suggest that. The whole premise of this diary is that Plame is the key to the whole affair, and that she was sufficiently important to be viewed known and viewed as an antagonist by political folks at the White House. I doubt those folks knew about the details of operations or operatives (if they did that probably represents a breach of security at least as big as disclosing Plame) but I'm sure they had identified the folks at CIA that were refusing to play ball.

          Outing Plame was a step from covert skirmishes toward open warfare with CIA. They thought they could go there because the success of the War had given them political capital. Shortly thereafter the complete failure to find WMD and the unexpected ferocity of the insurgency left them exposed and vulnerable. A little jujitsu move and all of a sudden the same CIA folks they were ready to fry for denying the WMD threat are now introuble for inflating it. Fitzgerald may give us a window on just how that was arranged. Or perhaps more to the point who lied about how it was arranged and who conspired to cover it up.

          •  Getting even with Joe Wilson--and Valerie (none / 1)

            Maybe someone could post the Novack column.  As I remember it, part of Novack's point is that the WH was pissed at Valerie--hey, she's a covert agent at the CIA, and she recommended her knuckle-head husband to go to Niger,  and he not only doesn't back us on the bogus yellow cake, he goes public with the story,  making the WH look like the pigs they were and are as represented in the DSM.

            People forget that just like Tip O'Neill said all politics are local, with these guys all politics is personal.  The chief reasons W went to war in Iraq were to:

            1.  Show Saddam he couldn't try to kill his Daddy.

            2.  Show Daddy that W was a bigger man than he.

            Unfortunately for the thousands who have been killed and maimed,  it is not much more complicated than that.  The ot