The Plame affair

Remove all ads!

I am surprised I am not seeing more comments on this board on what is arguably the hottest topic in Washington right now .

To recap: the story started two years ago, around the time that the administration still claimed that weapons of mass destruction were the reason for the war in Iraq. There was talk of a Nigerian connection, i.e. Saddam was trying to aquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. A carrer diplomat (J. Wilson) was dispatched to verify this.

A couple of months after the war ended (and no WMDs were found) Wilson published an editorial (in the N.Y. Times, I think) saying that his conclusions after his trip was that there was no credible indication that the Niger story was true; however, the administration choose to disregard said conclusions.

A week later, in a column by R. Novak (the conservative journalist), was mentioned that it was Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, a CIA analyst, who recommended him for the job. The implication being that his findings were not to be trusted, since his trip to Niger was sort of a sinecure (who whould have thought that Niger makes a good place for a vacation ). Novak mentioned as his sources two unidentified senior administration officials.

The problem is, turns out that Plame was sort of an undercover agent; and exposing the identity of such operatives might be a criminal matter. Upon which, the CIA requested a criminal investigation into whom had leaked the occupation of Plame to Novak. (Note that it was the CIA, not the democrats).

A special prosecuto was duly appointed . Now, one would think this would be a simple matter; just ask Novak who his sources were, end of matter. However, the affair turned rather strange.

Apparently, Novak was not the only one who got this information from the "two unidentified senior administration officials". Two other reporters, Judith Miller from NY Times and Mat Cooper from Time got the same info; but they did not publish anything. Now, apparently Novak talked to the prosecutors, and was fine; these other two reporters invoked the promise of confidentiality made to their sources and refused to identify them.

After a lengty battle in courts, the Supreme Court said the reporters do not have the right to be silent. As such, the prosecutor can send them to jail. Cooper folded and talked, Miller did not and is in jail right now.

So, now we know who Cooper source was. And it turns out that the person is Karl Rove. Which is a great embarassment for the administration, since Bush said many times that it would fire whoever was involved in the leak (and also strongly denied many times that Rove was in any way involved). Well, now the position is that anybody who "commited a crime" will be fired. Note it is not enough anymore to simply "be involved".

So, that's the abriged story. There are all sorts of details I left out (like, for example, it seems that Novak itself did not learn from Rove the identity of Plame; Rove just confirmed it) but who's interested can find more in papers. All in all, it seems to me a rather interesting story

 

Except she wasn't an undercover agent. She was an analyst working at CIA headquarters at Langley. Therefore, no crime was committed. This is the defense used by the media to protect Miller and Cooper.

For all the details see:
National Review editorial on the criminality of "outing" Plame.

Yes, I know, National Review. Right-wing, can't be trusted. Except, they link to the actual legal brief filed on behalf of Miller and Cooper. So the The New York Times demonstrated that they new that Plame's cover had been blown years ago (on two occasions, see the brief) hence no crime was commited. They remembered this fact when defending two journalists, but forgot it when they went after Rove.

All in all, another empty story distracting people from the important issues, like, servicemen dying overseas (Why, Bush, why?), the Supreme Court vacancy, the terrorist attack in London, etc.

 

Yeah, don't expect much in the way of the rule of law from these guys. They will circle of wagons, and wait this story out. And some people said that the Clinton administration had "no shame." I think the reason no one has commented on this very hot story is that there is a feeling that it is just business as usual with these guys.

Ah, Jack. Yes, I see your point also. But take a look at the comment and then judge for yourself:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050718/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc

Let me ask you this, Jack: Why was Wilson's wife even a topic of conversation with these guys?

 

I wouldn't take anything in National Review, much less an OpEd, as evidence for anything, considering how intensely partisan they are. If Bush and his goons look bad there, then only for not having attacked Iran and Syria last year already.

IMO Rove is a vertiable a**hole, and if that affair kills his career, what I doubt, that's perfectly fine with me. After so much smear and sleaze dealt out by him, it would be quite the festival to see him at the receiving end for a change.
After all, the Plame affair is just Rove's SOP all over again. Leak'em something juicy about a political opponent, right or wrong, to shut him up or destroy his credibility. Over the years, Rove has relied on the planting of bogus stories in the media, production of counterfeit documents, the theft of campaign materials and internal documents, production of false witnesses, electronic eavesdropping, misuse of government resources, unethical political polling techniques, intimidation of minority voters, and 'whispering campaigns'.

Let's be frank, that man is scum.

Enter Judith Miller. She, as a prime propagandist of the war, had every reason to be as keen to discredit Wilson as was Rove. Suppose she learned from her good buddy and prime disinformant, Ahmad Chalabi, that it was CIA employee Plame who assigned her husband the Niger mission to check the charges that Iraq bought uranium yellowcake.

And she relayed to whom? Maybe to one of the State Department's neocons, John Bolton or EliottAbrams come to my mind, who dutyfully passed the news on to Libby and Rove. Iirc Rove told the prosecutor that he learned about Plame from two journalists.

It would be priceless to see him go behind bars for refusing to disclose his sources.

If you want to start waving words like "treason" around, the AIPAC spy case is surely a better target than Karl Rove. Here we have a four-year FBI probe of possible treachery by senior US government officials, as well as by Israel's premier lobbying outfit in the United States, AIPAC.

Sadly, I fear the democrats are, somewhat understandable, excited and delighted at the chance to aim their big guns at Rove. Well, have fun folks.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised at this. This type of thing happens with every administration. It's not just one side or the other.

In general, there are always politicians who have little respect for, and take advantage of, career government workers. The military was treated like garbage by Clinton. The CIA has been the red-headed step-child for nearly every administration since Nixon. And I almost feel sorry for those poor saps at the IRS.

 

What the President said was "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.".

The reason Plame came up is because Joe Wilson said, under oath IIRC, that Cheney sent him to Niger to investigate if Saddam was trying to acquire "yellow cake" (a precursor for making nuclear weapons). The VP denied ever meeting, sending, or receiving any reports from Wilson, and the investigation was on. It turns out that at the very least Plame recommended and championed for her husband to go on this trip, and there is no evidence to tie him to Cheney. Wilson's credibility is blown, as was stated by the 9/11 commission.

Per recent interviews with Novak, Rove never named Plame, only referring to the person who sponsored him as being his wife, and indirect reference at best.

Now for a few details about the law being addressed here.

First, the person has to have been working as a covert agent outside of the US within the last 5 years. There is no evidence to show that she has worked outside the US during that time, and much evidence to indicate that she didn't (like the fact that the Cubans knew who she was 7 years ago).

Second, the person "outing" the agent has to be proven know that they were exposing an agent. Rove never even called her by name, and no evidence has been presented to indicate that he even knew who Valerie Plame was, never mind knowing that at one time she was a covert agent.

Finally, Rove is not under any official investigation by the special prosecutor. If there were any indication that Rove had done anything illegal he would be under investigation for it.

Bush has to go.
Rumsfeld has to go.
Ashcroft has to go.
Delay has to go.
Rove has to go.

Just another casualty in a long line of people that the left simply will not accept are rightfully and legally in power per the US system of selecting our leaders. We can all agree or disagree with them politically, but for Democrats to try to gin up petty charges in an attempt to force their removal because a they couldn't win power based upon their beliefs is pathetic, as it was with the Republicans went after President Clinton for his affair with Lewinsky.

By the way, Wilson has a book he just released in April , and was a contributor to the DNC and John Kerry's political campaign, so I wouldn't really call him impartial in this issue.

 

Darkwolf answered your question, but allow me to as well. Because Joe Wilson lied and said that Cheney had sent him on the fact finding mission. So when Novak asked Rove who sent him, he said "Wilsons wife".

That said, this is my last post on the subject. This is a non-story. You guys can debate it all you want.
No crime was committed, unlike in the Sandy Berger case. Which, as I recall, you guys were more than happy to dismiss without a second glance.

In this case we have a legal brief filed by the New York Times on behalf of the journalists stating that her cover was blown TWICE in the 1990's, and was no longer an undercover agent, hence no crime was committed.

I find it incredible that the New York Times and the National Review both agree on something. Considering those two sources, as well as the many other corroborating sources on the web, I believe that it is true.

There is plenty to criticize about the Bush administration without having to reach, like in this case. But don't let me spoil the party (not that I could), have fun and keep at it!

 

"have fun and keep at it"

Lets not and say we did!

 

The thing that makes you want to bang your head against the wall are these same news outlets who are saying that Rove is a criminal for "leaking" Plames name, are at the same time , in court saying no law has been broken. And these idiots wonder why the American people do not trust the press!

 

Oh, my I did nor realize this would bring out such strong opinions in people

Jack

I did not say Rove commited a crime. And Plame might not have been a field operative. However, CIA obviously considered what happened serious enough to require a criminal investigation.

Ragusa: I do not think Judith Miller is so bad. And Chalabi seems an unlikely source for the info. My money are on that classified State Department memo which apparently had a large circulation in the administration. And if this was it, it would be kind of hard for Rove (or others implicated) to say that they did not know exactly what was going on.

Darkwolf

To me, this is the kind of "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" defense

and "never named her" ? what kind of rationalization is that? he did not provide a photo, either. The relevant info was that the person was CIA agent.

Okay, let me also say that I think it is highly improbable that Rove will be convicted for revealing the identity of a secret agent. However, this case is quite interesting as an example of what is going on in this government. You know, the stonewalling, backstabbing, outright lying... You might argue that this is politics as usual, but still, fascinating

Finally, us democrats can always hope it would lead to more ; after all, there is a saying that in Washington it is not the deed which gets you in trouble, it's the coverup

 

Here's more on this new absurd "Bushism."

As commented by Huffington:

link

To call this a "non story" is partisanship of the highest order. Also, if you have a strong desire to accuse people who are asking questions about this story of only asking because of their politics, then take a good look at yourself in the mirror, because you may have a knack of seeing yourself as others see you.

I guess when Rove himself commented that he had "said too much already," some think he was "late for a meeting."

If I am understanding Cooper correctly it was Rove who brought up Wilson's wife. Or would anyone else here like to "clarify" this comment made by Cooper for the rest of us? Yes, it seems that there ARE a lot of denials here. But wait there's more:

Yes, well they are not commenting, Wonder why?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8599914/site/newsweek/

Sorry guys, this is not the "non story" that some would have us believe. But if only those pesky "Democrats" would stop asking so many questions...

[ July 20, 2005, 13:51: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Chandos, if every person in DC who every "leaked" info to the press were removed from office we would have no one left to run the country.

The only reply I will make on Huffington's comment is that she is being as obtuse as usual, and that not everyone who commits a crime goes to prison, so her statement is stupid.

The fact is that there is no evidence that Rove did anything thing wrong, period. When that evidence is provided, then we can talk about it, but until then, this is a witch-hunt based upon supposition and rumor.

The facts as we know them currently are that Wilson stated that he was sent to Niger by the VP. The VP denies that he sent Wilson, so the question becomes, who did send him? If his wife may have been instrumental in his trip, then she is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion especially as no evidence has been provided that her identity should have been protected by law or circumstance.

Now what, other than the fact that it is politically expedient, what justifies the dragging of Rove through the mud?

Finally, why is Judith Miller still in jail? Who is she covering for? She isn’t protecting anyone from prosecution, because as it turns out anyone could have given Plame's name and they would not have violated a single law, so why does she have to protect her source, especially if her source is either Rove, or is traceable back to Rove or the Administration?

"[ July 20, 2005, 13:51: Message edited by: Taluntain ]"

 

We are talking about the CIA here and security. This is an interesting point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/

 

[offtopic] A delightful way to run a Country, whatever happened to truth, honesy and integrity? Ah, but of course we're talking about politics. [/offtopic]

 

Well, then perhaps you should take a gander at this possible evidence:

Rove is not being "dragged through the mud," but nevertheless, "the mud" is where he belongs for selling out his country in an attempt to reap political gains by discussing classified information with his Republican cronies in the conservative press, IMO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

 

hehe, I aknow why I eventually didn't quote that article myself

That Plame's identity was leaked on purpose is undisputed anyway. Her name wasn't leaked because of her, but probably because her hubby was too critical on Bush. It seems that on this part everyone seems to agree. I find the conservative silence, implying that outing her was a totally normal and legitimate tactic, astounding.

Your criticism sucks and that's why I'll f*ck up your wife's career.

Normal all right. Plame's identity was leaked because Wilson pointed out the baselessness of the claim that Saddam bought yellowcake uranium in Niger.

I'd be curious to learn who actually faked these papers from Niger. That would be a key question IMO. It would seem to me that the benefactor of the belief in the papers is the same faction that would profit most from Wilson's silence, or his destroyed credibility.

[ July 22, 2005, 17:25: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

She is playing with the big boys. She was involved in getting her husband sent to Niger. He is a political activist, and got caught in more than one lie, and her part in the political activities of her husband were exposed.

Sorry, but it was her actions that resulted in her exposure. If she had stayed away from nepotism and recommended someone that she wasn't so closely tied to she would have likely stayed out of the press.

There is no evidence to indicate that anyone was using her as a pawn to attack her husband.

The question that needs to be asked is:

Is Valerie Plame too stupid to know better than to recommend her husband for anything, or was she crazy like a fox, and knew that if her husband went, she could be sure of the results of the "investigation"?

 

So maybe Wilson was also "playing with the big boys." I mean, weren't we lead into war by an administration of "political activists" who "got caught in more than one lie"?

Yes, of course! Rove had no other choice but to out the undercover CIA agent. He was, like, compelled. Against his will, and all that. He didn't really want to, but hey, no choice. What could he do?

Plus, it's Rove's special talent for sniffing out traitorous "political activists" and expunging them from the Bush administration. Like those librul commies Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. Everyone thought they were good solid patriotic Americans, but no: they were "political activists" all along.

 

And even if she 'played with the big boys', that doesn't give anybody a justification to break the law by blowing her cover, how thin it however was.

Her outing was a petty reprisal from the pro-war camp.

There is the only point where I have to criticise the U.S. left on the Plame affair: They sure have a very unsubtle double standard - had Plame's job not been counter-proliferartion but, say, organisation of anti-communist death squads in Nicaragua during the 1980s, just how would they have loved to see her outed?

Very much like them, Darkwolf, you seem to see Plame and Wilson as pro-Kerry and anti-Bush and that's reasson enough to punish both of them, seemingly even to break the law.

Never mind that Wilson donated to the Bush the Elder campaign ... well, in today's partisan setting you're either with us - or with the enemy. There is no more room for centrists.

But that doesn't make your thorougly partisan point of view less questionable Darkwolf.

You aren't any better than the America-hating leftists as far as double-standards are concerned.

 

Yes, we all know that anyone who "crosses" the Prez's men are in serious danger of being branded Un-American, Un-patriotic, and pro-terrorist activists. Thus, they are beneath the law (well, they brought it on themselves, it seems). Perhaps once these guys have finished installing "democracy in Iraq," they will be kind enough to return it to America.