The Plame affair

Remove all ads!

No matter how hard you wish for it to be true, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. She had not been for years. The CIA felt she had been compromised by Aldrich Ames, and later, by the CIA itself.
And Clarke and O'Neill were political activists. They openly worked with the dems and their propagandists in the press. And don't forget that both have been discredited and shown to be liars,

 

Well, she had been working under cover, even though she didn't have a cloak-and-dagger job. People seem to have a distorted view of how intel services work. Sometimes they are very subtle and low key.

So, no matter how thin her cover was, that doesn't mean she was not working under cover.

And then, again, why so personal?

If Wilson was such a dumbass, why not crush his facts? Well, maybe because that is impossible - he was right in stressing the niger documents were fakes. Dodge this.

Well, that's easy. Just say he's a partisan hack and that his wife sent him on a joy ride to Niger (which isn't joyful at all, according to friends of mine the country sucks) ... aah, that's why he is right when he sais the Niger documents were fakes ...

 

How do you know that for certain? The CIA is not going to proclaim secured information to the public. I hope they have more sense than that, even if Rove doesn't.

 

I really have no idea what the point of this statement is other than to either take an off topic shot at the administration, or to create a red herring.

There is no evidence she is an undercover agent. Even her nieghbors knew that she worked for the CIA, and her cover was blown by the Russians in the '90s.

The fact that her name is mentioned twice (coincedental mentions at that) does nothing to prove that she was a covert operative.

As far as her exposure hurting her career, what killed her career is the exposure of her lack of judgement, specifically in avoiding nepotism. Blaming any harm to her career on Rove is like someone blaming the I.T. for their being fired for looking at porn websites on their company computer.

Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, and Joe Wilson... I think there is a common denominator here.

[edit]
Ok Chandos, there is no evidence at this time that she is a covert agent, and until there is, Rove is innocent until proven guilty. Seriously, if there were any evidence that she was a covert agent, it would be out already. There is no reason to keep it hidden, since her cover is blown anyway. But let me ask you this, how can she be a covert agent when the Russians had blown her cover a decade ago?

Ragusa, how have Wilson and Plume been punished? The only punishment that has been handed out is the abuse Rove has taken from the press for committing an alleged crime against a law that does not EXIST! Please tell me what law Rove broke? You can’t, as there is no evidence that he broke any law on the books. Additionally, Wilson formally and financially backed Kerry in the election, proving his political activism.

By sending someone who was not a professional, and was obviously politically active the findings of his trip are completely contaminated, so I don't have to disprove anything, they already destroyed the evidence, and as a lawyer, you know it.

[ July 22, 2005, 20:15: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Well, some in the agency are saying differently, DW. It comes down to those in the service of their country and those who are in the service of their party. But I'll go with the professionals on this one; you can stick with the "prime-timers."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20050722/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc

[ July 23, 2005, 00:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

And it is a partisan issue, no doubt: look at all the rightwing blogs etc that only mention the issue to try to poke holes in the story, while leftwing blogs etc are covering it non-stop. Which reminds me...

About a week ago, stuck in a rental car without any CDs, I found myself listening to talk radio. And so I listened for the first time to Michael Savage: who is this guy? What a royal wingnut poser. Especially funny how he tried to seem like an independent for attacking the rightwingers for not being rightwing enough, while basically completely parroting the standard rightwing talking points. I remembered this as he dismissed Plame as a non-story, while joking that the UK would pretend that 7/7 hadn't happened in order not to offend British Muslims (a sewer pipe explosion, they would call it), and basically saying the only way to protect ourselves is to revoke civil rights. Of course, how could any other bit of news matter because there's terrorism somewhere. Classic.

 

It should easy to directly prove wrong on this.

The law states that the agent had to be in the field working covertly in the last 5 years, that their cover had not already been blown, that the person who outed them new the person was working covertly, and that the intent of their actions were to expose the agent.

None of you address this directly; because you can't you don't have a leg to stand on.

The other issue is whether or not, even if it wasn't against the law, Plame was a valid individual for discussion. As no one closely connected to the story denies that she was directly involved in a nepotistic act, and given lack of qualifications of her husband for such a task, the reasons that she chose to back her husband rather than an independent investigator become valid topics of discussion. Even the 9/11 Commission looked at his report dubiously.

I know that those who oppose the Bush Administration feel that, as they know Bush is guilty of every crime ever known to man, the administration should just accept every accusation without any attempt to defend themselves, but the reality is they have every right to defend themselves, and Plame's motives in endorsing her husband are valid questions. As Joe Wilson decided to take this fight to the airwaves and print, the administration has every right, as long as they act within the confines of the law to give their side of the story. Plame hasn’t been maligned in any manner by the administration other than the accusation of nepotism, and the question of why she would act in this manner.

If it turns out that the accusation that Rove exposed her turns out to be true, then the press has every right to fry Rove, but they are too busy looking for a scandal to have as a lead story to worry about little things like reporting the facts and giving the prosecution time to finish their investigation. Reporters no longer are impartially reporting the news, they are competing to maintain and grow market share, and they really don’t give a damn as to who they hurt, and who they mislead while doing it.

Savage is in dire need of medication and a padded cell. The man is in favor of genocide in the ME and the destruction of the religion of Islam. The man only believes in those rights handed down by Christians and Jews to Christians and Jews, and that the Bible is the only form of truth in the world.

 

I certainly won't argue that point. But somewhat, like the Bill and Monica scandal, the press is smelling blood somewhere. They are circling like sharks, waiting for the presecutor to show his hand and put the hammer down on someone - IF it turns out to be true. But it's not just the press, it's the nature of politics, especially these days. But I'm with you all the way in which the press holds its own trial regarding its victims.

Personally, I don't believe that George is guilty of any crime in this case, only the poor judgment of allowing Rove too much of a free hand in matters that involve security. Also, you may have noticed that the prez went from saying that he would fire anyone who "leaked such info to the press," to saying that he would fire that person (once it was discovered that it was Rove), for being "proven to have committed a crime." He really looked the fool for this giant flip-flop. Politically, it has been devastating for both the Prez and his adminstration. And that is fair game for the press.

 

What I always find astounding is that there are folks who cavalierly dismiss Plame's outing as a non-issue, be it because her cover has been getting thinner or because it has been blown already. So what?

Reminds me of the folks who at 3 am at night run over a red light, get stopped by the police, lose their driving license and complain that they never endangered anyone, after all the streets were empty, and hey, they were on their way home ... not to mention all the other excuses that come to their minds.

Why are they punished?

Simple: Because (a) for the abstract danger involved when ignoring red lights -- and in Plame's case the abstact danger to any covert operative when his cover is blown, that is: The leaker(s) wouldn't be only punished for harming Plame especially but also as a deterrent for others to prevent further outings, just because of the abstract danger involved with blowing the cover of a covert operative -- and (b) for the generally cavalier attitude toward the law.

In fact, it is fairly easy to see why this should be prosecuted, no matter if it's about Rove or some journalists acting on their own in anticipated obedience and the spirit of true partisanship.

 

Sorry, but I think that is a poor analogy. The types of people that need protection are the kinds who could not reliably complete their jobs, and or whose lives might be endangered if they were to be exposed.

Answering the question of "is your cover blown?" with the answer of "sort of" is similar to using the same answer to the question "are you pregnant?". It is a yes or no answer; there is no room for grey in the middle in the case of undercover operatives.

 

Well, DW, I read this just today. It has that same ring to it that occured when an investigation involving a bad real estate deal, which went to a perjury investigation, and finally turned into a sex scandal:

This is really interesting:

He could not recall? Yeah, that's it, he just can't remember.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8673342/

 

Darkwolf: It cannot be contested, at least, that Rove disclosed Plame's identity to Matt Cooper. Anyhow, let's say that by doing so he did not commit a crime.

Why all the stonewalling, then? Outright lies, even. Okay, it was not Bush, it was McClellan, the White House press secretary, who said many times that Rove was not involved in any way with the leak. Which, however you slice it, is not true. I think one of the reasons this story gets so much play in the press is that the reporters sort of hate it when somebody lies to them that way.

And how about all those White House early comments about accountability, Bush wanting to get to the bottom of this case, etc. This would seem to me to imply that even if no crime was commited, it was a pretty serious matter. After all, I think we can expect from our leaders to be more than not felons.

To me this showcases perfectly the conservative double standard. Clinton lied about having sex, and was mercilessly hounded. Rove lied to protect his behind, and we are supposed not to care.

 

Darkwolf,
no, it is not a poor analogy. Both cases involve deeds that pose an abstract danger. Systematically they are very similar.

It is abstractly dangerous to cross red lights. The inherent risk of accidents endagers not only your life and property but also life and property of other participants in traffic. The red light is there for a reason. The other part is the bad attitude toward the rule of the law that is expressed by the act of crossing a red light.
Therfor this behavior is sanctioned even if the danger didn't manifest, even if it couldn't possibly manifest because the streets were empty.

It is abstractly dangerous to out covert operatives because generally there is a risk either for themselves or their mission involved. Covert operatives don't operate covertly because it is so darn cool, good covers take years of hard effort to build, and they are built because you cannot get the job done when operating openly.
To prevent harm to them or their mission, and in reaction to a wave of outings that were found damaging intelligence efforts or endangering intelligence operatives, both active and retired, the according law was put in place.

It isn't even necessary that the actual outing posed an actual danger to Valerie Plame. It is totally irrelevant wether she 'played with the big boys' or how thin her cover was. The bad percendent her outing set is reason enough to seek punishment of the culprit.

It's as much about punishing the culprit for his deed as about prevention of others through deterrence, making the punishment of the outer an example.

[ July 25, 2005, 11:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The plot thickens.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8682500/site/newsweek/

 

Wow, Novak finally comments on his role in disclosing Plame's identity.

New York Times article (registration needed, I think)

Apparently he was told by a CIA guy not to mention her name, but he did so anyhow, since the agent did not make clear that "Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else.''

 

I found an insightful comment from Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn

 

A quite comprehensive description of persons involved in the Plame leak is brought to you by the Center for American Progress:

http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal

Also, a former California prosecutor makes a case in an LA Times editorial today that the special prosecutor may actually be trying to convict the people responsible for the leak of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The accepted wisdom being that this is highly improbable, since the evidence would need to pass too high a threshold. Well, that would be serious stuff, compared with a simple obstruction of justice charge.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-delavega12aug12,1,7070171.story?