Decision ‘08

Was Valerie Plame Covert?

The truthful answer: you don’t know. I don’t know. Dan Froomkin doesn’t know. And the Minute Man doesn’t know, either - but he can tell you why you don’t know in case you’re under the illusion that you do…

9 Responses to “Was Valerie Plame Covert?”

1 Scott Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Here’s the problem with this argument Mark - it’s a technical issue which I believe serves the administration’s purpose by distracting from the real damage incurred by the public release of her identity and their responsibly in this. Ms. Plame was working for the CIA. It’s not in question that she was doing important work that served the country’s interests. As a result of the administration’s actions, she was hurt and the American people were hurt. Something bad happened. It is very disingenuous to make the argument which says, “but technically it might not be against the law, so whatever follows from it is irrelevant.”

You will be happy to know that while I initially thought that her “outing” may have been a retaliatory act against Wilson, I now think the evidence (which was NOT the point of the court case) suggests that this was not their intention. So props to them for not intending to harm the Wilsons and the country; but show me where it was something that they bothered to avoid?? They did not want to be questioned so they peddled this meaningless story to a half a dozen reporters. (The idea that his wife may have been involved in selecting him for a mission SHOULD NOT disqualify or even challenge his findings, but the Vice President’s office was trying to throw up a smoke screen (again).) Distract, distract, distract. Well, my question is WHY? WHY? WHY? You should be asking this question. If their actions and intentions were honest then why not allow Wilson to be heard independent of some meaningless information that his wife may have suggested that he be the one to investigate a question that the Vice President himself asked. Your administration continues to hide and obscure their actions and intentions by challenging critics in ways that have no baring on the issues. Their very intent is to rob the American people of their chance to see the facts and think for themselves. We cheer the guilty verdict because finally someone got caught in the process.
2 Relish Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Let’s take a step back, before the Fitzgerald investigation began. Richard Armitage told Bob Novak that Plame was CIA. That’s a fact. Both parties acknowledge it. Armitage was no fan of the White House, but he felt a need to set the record straight. He, somehow, is paying no price for his actions, but that’s another story.

Why was it necessary to establish her affiliation? Because Wilson implied in his op ed and apparently flat out said to other reporters that the Vice President’s Office sent him to Niger. Any good reporter is going to track down how a retired ambassador (friendly to the Democrats) would be sent on such a sensitive mission by a Republican White House. Oh, his wife works for the CIA and she had a hand in arranging for him to go…oh, okay, that explains how Wilson went to Niger on behalf of the United States.

Was Plame covert at the time? Many with far more knowledge of classified status than I have indicated that she could not have technically been covert because she had not been posted overseas since the early 1990s. She has two young children, so it’s unlikely they would send her back out on a covert assignment. Andrea Mitchell (what ever happened to her in all this?) made the cavalier statement that “everyone knew” Plame was CIA.

Why would the OVP try to discredit Wilson? Because Wilson was making false and misleading statements in the press that were undermining the Administration’s position on going to war in Iraq. The congressional committee concluded that Wilson’s findings from his trip did in fact support the notion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Niger. Therefore, the story Wilson was feeding to the media was a blatant lie.

Was Valerie Plame a victim in all this? Well, if I go in to rob a bank and get shot in the process, I am a victim of sorts, but I have had a significant role to play in my injury. Plame should have known that she was jeopardizing her standing by starting this whole process in motion. Unfortunately, over the years, many of our government employees have found it more useful to advance their own agendas rather than serving the cause of the United States as a whole.

Oh, and Scott, how do you feel about the other leaks out of the intelligence community about the SWIFT program and other top-secret information that’s found its way to the front page of the New York Times or the Washington Post? Were the American people hurt by those disclosures or just by the outing of a middle-level CIA specialist?
3 Scott Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Can’t comment on Armitage, don’t know about Armitage - someone smarter than me decided not to prosecute him. Maybe it was because he didn’t lie and attempt to throw sand in the umpire’s face.

Wilson never said that he was sent by the OVP. This is a strawman argument used to discredit him. He said he was sent by the CIA so that they could answer a question asked by the VP. That was true. (Cheney was evidently never told that Wilson was the one chosen; however, he was told that a clandestined source had been tasked.) And Ms. Plame did not have the authority to make the decision about sending him. Her role suggesting her husband for the trip does not disqualify his findings. It’s a cheap political trick to impeach his findings and should be beneath government-citizen discourse.

So who robbed a bank Relish? Wilson was sent on a mission. He completed his mission, gave his report, and yet those 16 words still ended up in the State of the Union. And by the way he was right. Hussein was in no position to do anything with Yellowcake at that time. (And to anticipate your response, yes, I agree that he would have liked to be in such a position to do something with yellowcake.)

You are wrong when you claim that Wison was lying. Wilson’s findings from his trip did not support the notion that Iraq had been seeking yellowcake from Niger. He acknowledged that they had been seeking it in the mid-1980’s, but not since. You are parsing words and manipulating his meaning when you say otherwise.

Regarding other leaks - this is a distraction from the issue, but I will indulge you. I concede that you may have been hurt by the disclosure that CIA agents were taking accused terrorists to other countries in order to torture them; I however was not. I felt like an honorable/moral/proud American who could clearly differentiate the means by which I pursue my goals from the ways in which the terrorists do. I guess that we will have to disagree here.
4 Mark Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Scott, you’re selectively responding. I believe Relish asked you about the SWIFT program, as well - does your honor and status as a proud American make you feel better about having anti-terrorist financing programs disprupted by leaks to the New York Times?

A program, by the way, that was completely legal and by all accounts extremely effective…
5 Scott Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Give me a break Mark, 1/10th of my response was a selective response to a question that was a distraction from the issue in the first place. AND, the SWIFT program is the SINGLE reported story that I’ve seen, which is questionable with regard to it being in the public interest….

Nonetheless, here is my response. I have not done the research on the SWIFT program, but by the accounts that I saw, they were advertising their program and invlovement with American authories on their website. I’m not sure any good or bad came from it. I wasn’t necessarily interested and generally choose to leave people to do their jobs as long as they are being legal,moral, and effective. I didn’t have an outrage response either way. Here’s the problem- this administration is not honest regarding the information that they release. Bush says that his programs catch the “evil-doers,” but frequently this turns out to be a gross-exaggeration. There are many examples and you know it. So…. I condemn the NYT for reporting this story if it damaged the effort to get terroist money in any way.
6 Mark Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Fair enough…
7 Relish Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
It begins (and should have ended) with Armitage. There is no tangible proof (conjecture from some quarters, yes; proof, no) that the White House was engaging in a smear campaign. To me, it looks like the OVP was trying to set the record straight about who sent Wilson to Niger (i.e., not Dick Cheney). To you, it looks like a smear campaign. I’m not going to change your mind, so I’m not going to try.

Based on comments by the press (for instance, Chris Matthews), Wilson was giving them the impression that he had been sent at the Vice President’s request. Was he pumping himself up to sound more important or laying the groundwork to try to discredit the White House? Who knows? It’s a done deal now anyway. You’ll notice that the media is not exactly hoisting Wilson on their shoulders. They’re glad Libby was convicted, but you don’t see a lot of singing of Wilson’s praises…he’s a blowhard who’s proven to cause more trouble than he’s worth.

Those 16 words that some find so very damaging for the President’s credibility should have been removed by the CIA or State prior to the State of the Union if they were inaccurate. Every speech is vetted for accuracy and reliability, so someone may have dropped the ball, but it wasn’t President Bush. As far as I recall, they were based on British intelligence anyway, not Wilson’s report as verification.

As for Plame, if you’re in a sensitive intelligence position (undercover or not), you don’t get yourself entangled in a pissing contest with the Administration and expect to come out unscathed. Like trying to rob a bank and expecting not to get shot. Whether that’s fair or not, it’s a choice she took when she got into the whole mess. Covers have been compromised by far less.
8 Corby Says:
March 17th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Please read The Nation article Posted 03/16/2007 @ 1:32pm—Mr Relish is not going to relish what it says since it contradict most of what he has been saying here.
URL is http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=176110

Cheney and particularly Rove are in deep doo-doo IMO.
9 Robert Klahn Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Quick points that seem to be overlooked.

The administration claims they revealed Plame’s name and connection to explain why they did not take Wilson’s trip seriously. Yet, they also claim all these administration officials first learned of Plame in May or June or July of 2003. How would they know not to take Wilson seriously after his trip in Feb 2002 if they didn’t learn of his wife until almost a year and a half later?

Victoria Toensing claims Plame was not covert because she was not stationed overseas, just traveled there. What we called TDY in the military. If that is not true, Toensing is a liar. If it is true, Toensing is a lousy lawyer. See, she claims expertise because she helped draft the law. What she seems to forget is, there are two groups of people covered, Intel Agency employees, who must serve overseas within 5 years, and people cooperating with the intel agencies, but not employed by the agencies. Those may be US citizens or even foreign nationals. However, the non-employees must *RESIDE* outside the US.

So, if it is necessary to be stationed outside the US to be covert, why does the law make a distinction between employees who must serve outside the US, and non-employees who must live outside the US? Are employees allowed to live in the US, but required to commute to another country every single workday, to be covert?

That law was not written to address the issue of US agents stationed overseas, it was written to address the issue of US agents being killed overseas. The law was written after a CIA station chief was killed in Greece after his identity was revealed.

Toensing is willing to compromise the safety of US agents traveling overseas in the service of this country to defend someone who compromised a *SECRET* agent, and all those associated with her, for political purposes. I used the term, “secret”, above to point out that what he did was despicable, no matter what excuse Toensing comes up with to cover his law breaking.

Libby deserved his conviction. As did Rove and the rest of that contemptible bunch. You may play legalistic games to decide if he was guilty under the law, but to defend what he did as acceptable is to betray those who serve this country at the risk of their lives.