Decision ‘08

The Great Hitchens on the PlameGate Kerfuffle

Anyone who doubts what a molehill becomes under the magnifying lens of a special prosecutor should read this Hitchens piece from today’s Wall Street Journal - it’s brilliant, blistering stuff. Some highlights:

To judge by his verbose and self-regarding performance, containing as it did the most prolix and least relevant baseball analogy ever offered to a non-Chicago audience, Patrick Fitzgerald is not a man with whom the ironic weighs heavily. Nor does he seem discountenanced by his failure to find any breach in the IIPA or even the more broadly drawn Espionage Act. Mr. Libby stands accused of misstating his conversations with almost every journalist in Washington except for the only one–Robert Novak–who actually published the totemic name of Valerie Plame. “We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent,” Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed.

…As to the critical question of whether Mr. Plame had any cover to blow, Mr. Fitzgerald was equally insouciant: “I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert.”
In the absence of any such assertion or allegation, one must be forgiven for wondering what any of this gigantic fuss can possibly be about. I know some apparently sensible people who are prepared to believe, still, that a Machiavellian cabal in the White House wanted to punish Joseph Wilson by exposing his wife to embarrassment and even to danger. So strong is this belief that it envisages Karl Rove (say) deciding to accomplish the foul deed by tipping off Robert Novak, one of the most anti-Iraq-war and pro-CIA journalists in the capital, as if he were precisely the pliant tool one would select for the dastardly work. And then, presumably to thicken the plot, Mr. Novak calls the CIA to confirm, as it readily did, that Ms. Plame was in the agency’s employ.

Meanwhile, and just to make things more amusing, George Tenet, in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence, tells Dick Cheney that he employs Mr. Wilson’s wife as an analyst of the weird and wonderful world of WMD. So jealously guarded is its own exclusive right to “out” her, however, that no sooner does anyone else mention her name than the CIA refers the Wilson/Plame disclosure to the Department of Justice.

…What if Mr. Wilson spoke falsely when he asserted that his wife, who was not in fact under “non-official cover,” had nothing to do with his visit to Niger? What if he was wrong in stating that Iraqi envoys had never even expressed an interest in Niger’s only export? (Most European intelligence services stand by their story that there was indeed such a Baathist initiative.) What if his main friends in Niger were the very people he was supposed to be investigating?

Well, in that event, and after he had awarded himself some space on an op-ed page, what was to inhibit an employee of the Bush administration from calling attention to these facts, and letting reporters decide for themselves? The CIA had proven itself untrustworthy or incompetent on numerous occasions before, during and after the crisis of Sept. 11, 2001. Why should it be the only agency of the government that can invoke the law, broken or (as in this case) unbroken, to protect itself from leaks while protecting its own leakers?

Ahhhh, the satisfactions of a well-written polemic…

24 Responses to “The Great Hitchens on the PlameGate Kerfuffle”

1 peter Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Possibly well-written, but without substance.

1) Libby is not “accused of misstating his conversations.” He’s accused of perjury. I don’t think Hitchens would be as charitable to describe Bill Clinton of “misstating” the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
2) Fitzgerald was not “insouciant” of whether Valerie Wilson was covert. He didn’t indict. He may yet indict for exposing Valerie Plame. Because he did not indict anyone for this crime, he wisely did not even hint whether or not the crime had in fact occured.
3) “One must be forgiven for wondering what any of this gigantic fuss can possibly be about?” Well, senior government officials close to the President and Vice President revealed the identity of a CIA agent for their political benefit. Whether or not it is illegal, it is certainly unpatriotic. I would go further and call it treasonous.
4) Tenet did not “out” Valerie Plame when he discussed her with Cheney. He is, after all, the Vice President. Big difference between discussing a confidential matter with someone with the highest security clearance in the country and telling reporters so that they can publish it.
5) What exactly is “the weird and wonderful world of WMD?”
6) “What was to inhibit an employee of the Bush administration from calling attention to these facts?” Nothing — but that’s not what the administration did. If they wanted to insist that Iraq really was involved with buying yellowcake from Iraq, they could certainly do so. Instead, they exposed his wife, thereby ending her career, exposing the front company she worked for, and jeopardizing her contacts. This is not what you would call a nuanced distinction. Is Hitchens not sober enough to see this?
2 peter Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Sorry, from Niger, not from Iraq
3 Mark Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Come now, peter, you act as if it were a proven fact that the administration ‘outed’ Valerie Plame intentionally, when the Special Prosecutor had two years and the power of a grand jury and subpoenas and still could not prove it…and you mention senior government officials - need I remind you Rove was not indicted for anything whatsoever? I think this is precisely the point of Hitchens…and you’re right, I take the perjury allegations, as you do, more seriously than Hitchens…but I don’t believe the larger conspiratorial whisperings…Libby was overzealous in protection of his boss, and most likely broke the law…and will most likely pay.

The administration did assert that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow-cake uranium - and in point of fact, it was. Joe Wilson claimed to have blown the whistle based on forged documents that weren’t even revealed until months after he filed his report. Doesn’t excuse Libby, but that’s Christopher’s second point - Wilson is running around making wildly inaccurate claims, and that’s the subtext of the whole sordid affair…
4 peter Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:45 pm
1) Well, if the allegations in the indictment are correct, then the administration did out Valerie Plame intentionally. Perhaps Libby is innocent and will be exonerated — but the evidence thus far sure doesn’t seem to point that way.
2) The fact that Fitzgerald did not indict for exposing Valerie Plame does not mean that he can’t prove it. He may yet indict for it. He may have used prosecutorial discretion in deciding to indict for the other charges instead. He may be putting pressure on Libby which leads to Cheney.
3) Rove has not been indicted (yet), but we know that at least two government officials (Libby and Official A) were involved. I’m not saying it is a conspiracy, because it is such a shabby word and makes me think of Oliver Stone. However, at least two government officials — with the almost certain knowledge of Cheney — exposed a 16 year veteran of the CIA for political reasons. As Bob Dole used to say: where’s the outrage?
4) I don’t have time to investigate further — damn kids keep coming to the door looking for candy — but my impression is that Iraq may have sent people to Niger in the late 1990’s, but, like the WMD program, seemed to fizzle out. When Wilson went there, it was years after these discussions and the trail went cold. So it seems like “wildly inaccurate claims” is going a little too far…
5 Mark Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Whoa, whoa - regarding number one - Fitzgerald specifically and emphatically did NOT say what you said he did - from the piece I posted on (and verifiable from the transcript of the press conference):
“We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent,” Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed.

…As to the critical question of whether Mr. Plame had any cover to blow, Mr. Fitzgerald was equally insouciant: “I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert.”

So it is 100% wrong to claim that from the allegations in the indictment, the administration intentionally outed Plame - Fitzgerald will not even go so far as to say she was covert at the time!
6 peter Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Fitzgerald did not indict for the crime of exposing a covert action. However, the indictments allege that Libby informed Cooper and Miller that Plame was a CIA agent. Official A informed Novak. These phone calls exposed Plame’s CIA status to the outside world. How could this be anything but the intential outing of a CIA agent?
7 Mark Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Because the crucial piece that is missing is not whether she worked for the CIA - George Tenet works for the CIA, and I can tell a reporter that all day long. The crucial point, the point the whole enchilada rests on - well, it’s actually two points: (1) was she a COVERT employee of the CIA?, and (2) did Libby realize her covert status, not just the fact that she worked there?

And critically, those are the two points that Fitzgerald so pointedly tip-toed away from…
8 peter Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 12:04 am
Well, Tenet is the DCI and hence his identity is hardly a secret. Valerie Plame was quite obviously a covert agent — as Fitzgerald noted in his press conference, her friends and college roommates had no idea she worked for the CIA. Her business card identifies her company as a CIA front in Boston. What other evidence do you need to show that she was covert?

It also strains credulity that Libby was unaware of this. Unless you want to believe that he is a blithering idiot (no cheap shots here at the caliber of other Bush appointees), it is self-evident that someone who is reputed to be scary smart (and a lawyer) would blithely disclose the identity of a CIA agent without being aware that she was undercover –
9 Mark Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 12:08 am
Well, not to belabor the point, but again, the second point is that Libby may not have been aware she was covert - after all, he didn’t hobknob with her friends, so that may be relevant to point A, but it is not to point B.

Put it this way: the point Libby, Rove, et al, were trying to make in talking to the reporters was not “I don’t like Joe Wilson, so I’m going to put the national security of the U.S. at risk out of spite” - at least, I can’t believe that, and I find it hard to believe that you can either. Yet, if we accept that they knew she was covert, that’s what we have to conclude.

However, if, as I believe, and as I feel the preponderance of the evidence (and the lack of further indictments) shows, the point was to show that Joe Wilson was not sent at the behest of Cheney, as he claimed (and thus, the vehement defense by Scooter), but rather because his wife “who, after all, works at the CIA” put in a good word for him…well, it’s rather less sinister but far more plausible…
10 peter Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 12:12 am
Well, we may have to agree to disagree here — I find it very hard to believe that they did not know she was covert — and I do believe that they put the national security at risk out of spite.

I also would not be surprised to see more indictments in the days to come — I think the fat lady has some more singing to do –
11 The Ugly American Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 12:19 am
Hitchens is a genius.
12 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 10:19 am
The money quote:
“We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent,” Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed.

Don’t let the prosecutor stop you Peter…

Fitz couldn’t make the case because he had learned that Ms. Wilson’s indentity was known to the press, see Andrea Mitchell. She said members of the press knew the Wilson’s.

“NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell concedes that most of Washington’s media elite already knew it.”
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004931.php?dbd_day=10-21-2005

If Libby was the sole source to the press, he’d have been guilty of outing a classifed agent. Since he is not the only person, Matt Cooper, husband of Mandy Grunwald(HRC’s advisor) also is vulnerable.

Fitz couldn’t make the case, because Wilson had already blabbed. Judy Miller said she had another source. Kristof knew in May 03. The belief that Libby was the person who revealed classified info is ludicrous…Fitz would have had to indict Joe Wilson were he to pursue the matter.
13 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 11:32 am
“I also would not be surprised to see more indictments in the days to come — I think the fat lady has some more singing to do – ”

Actually you would have to say ‘months/years to come’…the current gj has expired. Fitz would have to impanel a new gj…after failing to indict on the purpose of the first gj.

So…the fat lady has sung to its audience, and they have left the building. The possibility is out there that a second GJ will be impaneled, but not very likely.

Act II? Revenge of the Fitz?

Likely he will not resolve not to impanel another gj, until after the Libby trial-the chance that any of his witnesses might commit perjury at trial, or be discovered committing perjury, or have committed perjury…

He needs the threat to continue to buld his case. His odds are actually slim on getting a conviction, because he failed to fully cross examine his witnesses…He limited the scope of his questions on Miller, and likely Cooper. Russert will be asked if Mitchell was a source to him-he will decline to answer, defense will move that the witnesses statements be stricken.

Libby’s defense is a matter of explaining his notes, versus his statements to investigators, the grand jury…there will be no solid witness to worry about. Is he guilty, probably. Will Fitz get a conviction? 50-50.

Unless the press wants to come clean about EVERYTHING they knew. Fitz will watch as his case crumbles.
14 peter Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 11:48 am
From Fitzgerald’s news conference: “Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.” This much is clear: Valerie Wilson was covert; her cover was blown about ten days after Wilson’s op-ed piece was published; Fitzgerald alleges that Libby and Official A told Matt Cooper and Judy Miller.

I don’t know how you can draw any conclusion from these facts except that Libby and Official A (presumably Rove) outed Valerie Plame. She was covert, Wilson’s piece was published, reporters were called, and her identity was exposed. Am I missing something?

As for future indictments and the likelihood of convictions: well, we’ll see. O.J. Simpson is a free man, so you never can predict what will happen. What did Cheney know? Did he tell Libby to expose Plame on Air Force Two? It just seems to me that we’re in the third or fourth inning of the ball game.
15 Jacques Distler Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 1:08 pm
From the indictment:

“On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.”

Cheney and Libby, familiar with such National Security matters, know that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the Directorate of Operations (ie, that she was covert).

“Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.”

In other words, Libby knew that her status at the CIA as classified.

Why are these facts laid out in the indictment, even though corresponding charges are not made? In the parlance of prosecutors, this is a speaking indictment, a signal to the other side about the strength of your hand, and a not-so-veiled threat of further indictments to come.
16 Mark Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 1:31 pm
We’ll see, Jacques…I agree with you and peter that further indictments are possible, but I don’t see them as likely…I base this on nothing but my gut, so it’s admittedly next to worthless, but I see Libby as keeping his mouth shut like a good soldier, then being pardoned on January 20, 2009 or thereabouts…

And I agree that parts of Fitzgerald’s indictments seem to indicate an accusation that Libby did know, but we can play this game all day;

Let me give it more at length: QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson’s identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I’ll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I’m not making that assertion.

Then there’s this:

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That’s a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.

FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.

And that is sort of what gets back to my point. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.

So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn’t really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we’ve alleged — convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements — very serious felonies — will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he’s held accountable.

It’s not as if you say, “Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute.”

So you’ll excuse me if I continue to believe that Fitzgerald has not said that Libby intentionally outed Plame, I hope, since he said so twice with great emphasis in his press conference.
17 peter Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I think the key is in the last two paragraphs of Fitzgerald’s answer. He is implicitly saying that the object is to hold Libby accountable, regardless of which statues Fitzgerald uses his prosecutorial discretion to form indictments. For reasons best known to himself, Fitzgerald chose to use perjury and obstruction of justice rather than exposure of an agent. (These reasons may be: the perjury charges seem to be a slam dunk; the exposure charge might be difficult to pursue if Libby’s defense includes information about the CIA which is non-public; or he could intend to use the exposure charge to Rove and/or others. Also, he likened obstruction of justice to throwing sand in an umpire’s eyes – perhaps if he went for the exposure charge it would be harder to prove the obstruction charge.) Because Fitzgerald didn’t indict on an exposure charge, he was not going to leave “the four corners of the indictments” to discuss it. So I wouldn’t view the fact that there was no indictment for exposure to be an exoneration of Libby – I think it falls within the rubric of prosecutorial discretion.
18 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 2:18 pm
“but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.”

Sadly, this is an admission that it was known. “not widely” is not really the adverb you want it to be. Seems this is an admission that her identity was known.

” Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.”
Good, that means the only people he did not exclude were the press.

You are using the word ‘covert’, but Fitz was distinctly clear in only using the word ‘classified’. Can you cite him using the word ‘covert’?

If this is the third or fourth inning, then the score is 25 to nil.

If more indictments come, it will to be prove to be for more perjury, in a perjury case, which may mean more indictments, and another perjury indictment…until all witnesses involved are charged with perjury, but are making deals to prove someone else perjured…please.

I’m dying to know Russert’s, Cooper’s, and Miller’s other sources. But it is pretty much irrelevant.

It comes down to the perjury against Libby. The prosecution lacks unimpeahable witnesses-only the notes are in play. The indictments are an ‘all or nothing’ proposition. One falls they all fall.
19 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Some numbers from Gallup? 10/28-10/30
http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

“Do you think these charges are a sign that the Bush Administration in general has low ethical standards, or do you think these charges are based on an isolated incident?”

56% isolated, 38% sign of low standard.

“As you may know, a special prosecutor has investigated the leak of the name of a CIA employee by White House officials. On Friday, a grand jury indicted Lewis Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. From what you have heard or read about Libby’s involvement in this matter, which of the following statements best describes your view of his actions? He did something illegal. He did something unethical but nothing illegal. OR, He did not do anything seriously wrong.”

only 45% believed it to be illegal.

“Overall, how would you rate the ethical standards of top Bush Administration officials: excellent, good, not good, or poor?”

51% Excellent or good.
20 peter Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 5:32 pm
1) Not widely known: I think you are reading too much into this. Fitzgerald cannot say it was unknown outside the intelligence community – after all, her husband, Cooper, Kristof, and Miller knew it. Her friends, acquaintances, and relatives did not know it. “Not widely known” doesn’t mean “it was an open secret.” Fitzgerald makes the point that her position was a secret one and her exposure compromises national security. As Bob Dole used to say: where’s the outrage?
2) The press: well, they became aware because they were told by Official A and Libby. Your point?
3) Covert vs. classified: this is a distinction too fine for even Bill Clinton. Her position was a secret one. Her business card showed a CIA front company in Boston. She worked in a clandestine area of the CIA. This is a covert role, regardless of whether Fitzgerald used the word in his press conference. Bush I described the exposure of an undercover CIA agent to be an act of treason. Do you disagree?
4) Re the score, the inning, the future: well, we’ll see.
5) I’m not sure what the point of the second post is. 38% of those polled think the Bush administration has low ethical standards; 45% believe that Libby’s actions were illegal; 49% believe that Bush’s ethical standards are not good or poor. So basically 40-50% of Americans think that the Bush administration is unethical. Are these numbers that you are proud of?
21 Jacques Distler Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 5:44 pm
I base this on nothing but my gut, so it’s admittedly next to worthless, but I see Libby as keeping his mouth shut like a good soldier, then being pardon on January 20, 2009 or thereabouts…

Odd to pin your “hopes” on the continued stonewalling being successful. The same hope was expressed during Watergate. It was only after G. Gordon Liddy was indicted that things began to fall apart for the White House.

Liddy … Libby … nice to keep the historical precedents in mind.
22 Knemon Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 8:41 pm
“So basically 40-50% of Americans think that the Bush administration is unethical. Are these numbers that you are proud of?”

Proud? No. Acceptable? Historically comparable to previous administrations? Probably.
23 Mark Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Jacques, lest I be misunderstood - I do think perjury is serious, and I do think Libby should go down if convicted - but I don’t think there is some broad conspiracy here that will unravel - I may be wrong (it’s happened before)…
24 peter Says:
November 1st, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Knemon: I doubt that a 40-50% “unethical rating” is comparable to previous administrations. Some administrations were essentially scandal-free: Carter, Ford, Bush I. Reagan had Iran-Contra, which I think is perceived more as a bonehead move than an ethical scandal. LBJ had lots of problems, but ethical scandals were low on the list. JFK may have been sleeping with Mafia mistresses, but it was not public knowledge at the time. In my lifetime, I think only Clinton and Nixon come close to Bush on this criterion.