Oh, Really?
The latest in the "defend Rove at all costs" is an anonymous White House source (haven't we had enough of those on this case) who says that Rove didn't tell Robert Novak about Valerie Plame, that in fact Novak told Rove, who then told Matt Cooper.
There are a number of reasons to suspect this, although clearly if Rove can convince the prosecutor that he got the information from a journalist rather than from his clearance to access government files, then he's not subject to the leak law.
First off, I'll be very interested in seeing what they actually say (I haven't read the NYTimes article yet, just descriptions of it), but if I had to guess, I'd bet that the phrasing, if parsed carefully, doesn't preclude Rove having told Novak that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA", and then Novak coming back with "Wilson's wife, the CIA agent, is Valerie Plame". Thus, Rove could legitimately claim that Novak named her to him, but not that Novak was the source of the information about her affiliation with the CIA. But that is just speculation.
My biggest reason to suspect this is Occam's Razor. Which is easier to believe:
1) that Karl Rove had the information and leaked it, either to discredit Wilson or as a punishment/warning to others who might cross him "We'll find a way to get you"
2) that Robert Novak had some reason to provide this information to Rove (not asking for a confirmation, that would still involve confirming secret information), knowing that it was a scoop that he was still several days away from getting released.
We'll see what happens. I suppose it's possible someone else leaked the information to Novak, who then leaked it back to Rove, who then leaked it to Cooper. Keep in mind, however, that Rove is on record as saying that he didn't say anything to Cooper until after the story had broken, and there's already proof that in fact he was discussing it with Cooper three days before the story was published.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 7/15/2005 01:00:00 PM
13 Comments:
But it doesn't even matter since Plome wasn't covert and hadn't been for six years.
Friday, July 15, 2005 8:26:00 PM
OK, where are you getting your information from, because that doesn't match with my impression.
However, there are a number of issues here I'd kind of like to have answered, if that's really the case:
1) Why is a reporter sitting in jail and another just barely avoided it over the case if Plame really wasn't covert?
2) When the sin that got the last President impeached was lying to the American public, why is there not a huge outcry over the fact that the White House clearly and repeatedly insisted that Rove had nothing to do with it, and now there's an e-mail proving he did?
3) Why did even the White House behave as if this was a huge story initially, making pompous chest-beating statements about how if there were any leaks of this type coming out of THIS White House, they would be dealt with, if in fact the leak was no big deal? Why have they only changed their tune on it once it starts to look like Rove may in fact have been guilty of something?
The thing is, the whole thing stinks, even if no law was actually broken. And I've read several sources that indicate that Valerie Plame was still covert and working on WMDs, which (if true) would mean that not only was her career destroyed, whatever network of information she had built up over her career was also unraveled.
This, along with the August 2004 identification of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan (a top al Qaeda leader who had been captured over a month before, and who was acting as a mole for anti-terror efforts) are two clear instances where this Administration's inability to keep it's collective mouth shut irreparably damaged key assets in the war on terror.
Liam.
Friday, July 15, 2005 11:17:00 PM
Hmmm. More interesting information. Part of the argument that Plame was covert is the use of the term "CIA operative" or "agency operative" in Robert Novak's original article. He has since claimed he believed she was merely an analyst, but apparently a search of Nexis for Novak's use of the terms shows that, with this one possible exception, he has used it correctly (ie to refer to covert operatives) every other time he has used them.
Oh, one other factoid I picked up: A lot of people are pointing to Wilson and saying that of COURSE the Administration didn't trust his report, he was originally appointed by Clinton. Not true. He was originally appointed by H. W. Bush, and merely remained in his post during the Clinton years.
More as I find it...
Liam.
Friday, July 15, 2005 11:28:00 PM
I found an article written by a Larry Johnson, who identifies himself as a classmate of Valerie Plame's in CIA training. He says Plame was a "non-official" cover officer, meaning that unlike most cover operatives, she did NOT carry a diplomatic passport.
In other words, while most agents, if they get into real trouble, whip out their diplomatic passport an get a sort of "get out of jail free" card, truly deep cover operatives operate with a regular passport, so as not to indicate any special relationship with the U.S. government at all.
Mr. Johnson goes on to assert that Valerie Plame was still undercover and her front company was still secret until she was outed by Novak.
I'm now going to try to track down info on HIM and see if he passes muster.
But so far, I haven't found any sources that say she definitely was not a covert operative. (The closest I could find was one comment by a CIA operative that it was "unlikely she would be used in that capacity again", but it was not clear whether this comment was relating to her status prior to the Novak article or the result of it.)
Still looking...
Liam.
Friday, July 15, 2005 11:34:00 PM
OK, there is a "Larry C. Johnson" who is now CEO and co-founder of "BERG Associates LLC" (http://www.berg-associates.com) who's bio says he was previously with the CIA and the State Departments Office of Counter Terrorism.
He is a registered Republican who has given money to the Bush campaign, but in this interview he confirms what I found on the other site. Plame was a 30 year undercover agent. Some quotes:
"Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades"
Now, he also says that there does not appear to have been any damage to national security or any individuals from the leak, to his knowledge, but he correctly points out that this isn't the point. If you start shooting a loaded weapon in a public place, it doesn't become "not a crime" simply because you don't happen to have hit anyone.
I've not yet found out when Larry Johnson left the CIA, but the best possible light on this (in terms of the Administration) would be that perhaps she stopped being a cover operative between when he left the agency and when the story broke.
Still, I have no evidence of that, and plenty of evidence that she was, at least for many years, a covert operative. So evidence that she no longer was may be legitimate, but this attempt lately to portray her as a minor CIA desk jockey doesn't seem to comport with reality (nor, in fact, with the other story being floated, that she somehow approved the trip for her husband, which would require her to be much higher in the Agency than she's been portrayed).
The closest I can come to that last bit is that she may have suggested her husband for the mission. Suggested, not approved. Suggested because she knew he had both experience and contacts that would help with the mission, just as she might suggest anyone else she knew who had that experience.
And what, exactly, is the implication of pointing that out? That she wanted to get her husband a free boondoggle trip? To Niger? This wasn't some trip to Paris or Venice or some Carribean island. This was Niger. What possible personal reason could she have had for wanting her husband to go on that trip?
So, I think I've found some pretty good evidence that Valerie Plame was, at least at one point, a cover agent. If you have compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm open to hearing it. Merely asserting more Republican talking points, however, ain't gonna cut it.
Liam.
Friday, July 15, 2005 11:55:00 PM
A correction. She was a 20 year CIA agent. I assume by "three decades", Mr. Johnson meant "the 80s, the 90s and the 00's".
He started at the CIA in 1985, and by his account, that means Plame must have started around the same time, which means in 2003 at the time of the Novak article, she would have been coming up on her 20th anniversary with the agency.
Liam.
Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:09:00 AM
Oh, another thing (yeah, still reading. Once I get to researching a topic, it's hard to get me off of it). The Novak article identified her (as we've all come to know her) as "Valerie Plame". Her public name is Valerie Wilson, she reportedly took her husband's name when they married.
Her maiden name, Plame, she is reported to have used on missions, one would guess so that she didn't immediately come up on a quick search as the wife of a U.S. government official.
But just the use of the maiden name by Novak (although it doesn't appear as if Rove leaked that part) indicates that he knew more about her CIA career than he should. Anyone who'd simply been told that "Wilson's wife is a CIA agent" would have reported that Valerie Wilson was a CIA agent.
Liam.
Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:18:00 AM
Fair enough. And I will admit that I think some of the Democratic hyperbole about endangering her life may have been overblown.
I did find some reference to her having been one of the agents suspected of having been compromised by Aldrich Ames in 1994, and having been reassigned at that time.
But still, everyone from the White House and prosecutor Fitzgerald on down seems to be treating this like she was covert. If she really wasn't, if it's that clear, then why not just SAY that, provide proof, and that's the end of it.
Even the fact that it's not demonstrably provable means that her identity should not have been leaked, just in case.
Liam.
Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:32:00 AM
This article seems to sum it up for me.http://politics.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20050714/cm_nypost/roveragehe39snotthevillain
Saturday, July 16, 2005 10:34:00 AM
OK, and I can see where that would make some sense, but either I've not been clear, or you've painted me with the same brush as the Democrats.
My issue is with the identification, whether or not it was done to out an agent or punish Joe Wilson, and whether or not it meets the very strict rules required for someone to be found guilty under the statute in question.
The problem is that someone in Rove's position (and the position of the other White House source Novak lists), someone in a position to know that Valerie Wilson was also a CIA operative named Valerie Plame, should also have been well versed in the CIA mantra, which (like the movie Fight Club) is basically "What happens in the CIA STAYS in the CIA".
I agree it's looking like Rove is not (or may not be demonstrably) guilty of actually violating the law. Technically. But of all people he should have known better. If she was, as is widely reported, a covert or even sometimes-covert operative working on issues of WMDs, then even forgetting HER rights for a moment, it shows an almost criminal lack of thought. At a time when "War On Terror" is repeated by this Administration as if it excuses all ills by the Administration and works as a blanket condemnation for anyone who disagrees WITH the White House, that scythe has to cut both ways. If even daring to question the motives and actions of the White House is tantamount to letting the terrorists win, then how is blunting the effectiveness of one of the weapons in that war any less heinous?
Why is the White House not clamoring loudly about that? If, in fact, Rove merely confirmed rather than sourcing the leak, why is the White House not condemning Novak?
If Plame is not a covert operative, why did Novak, who has nearly always used the term correctly suddenly use it incorrectly in this one case?
Look, the supporters of this Administration (or at least the Religious Right) talk about morality. This President was elected on a promise of returning Truth and Morality to the White House. The bar should be set a little bit higher than merely not TECHNICALLY breaking the law.
I also want to take issue with a line in that article: "a self-serving tip from the administration's point of view, but also a gesture made in service of the truth" (bold mine, italics theirs). It was NOT in service of the truth, it was in service of telling that portion of the truth that makes Administration opponents seem least credible. How does it in any way diminish the sending of Joseph Wilson on this mission that his wife initially suggested "Hey, my husband has the skills and contacts for this mission, he might be a good candidate". What kind of agent would she have been had she NOT pointed that out, knowing that someone was being sought for such a mission?
Liam.
Saturday, July 16, 2005 10:58:00 AM
Oh, one more thing, consider the tone of the article you're quoting.
The tone of the article is unabashedly right wing. It characterizes those who have (in my opinion legitimate) concerns over behavior in this affair as a "gleeful mob" and "Bush-bashers"
There's the line I've already pointed out about this being in service of the truth. There's a reason why the oath you take in court specifies not merely the truth, but also the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth. Because we understand that it is possible to tell only a very small part of the truth, technically have not lied, but definitely give a very misleading impression. Be clear, the leak of the name was not in service of the truth.
In my opinion, Rove did not do (as asserted in the penultimate line) "the right thing". He may have done "a legal thing", but I sitll maintain that regardless of anything else, as someone with a security clearance, he knew better (or should have) than to leak (or confirm) the agency affiliation of a CIA employee.
Finally, many of the bullet points against Joseph Wilson are direct quotes from the Republican Talking Points memo on the affair. That doesn't, in and of itself, make them untrue, but the parroting of talking points does TEND to put one's objectivity at question.
Now, if you've already taken as gospel that Joseph Wilson lies, you probably won't care about this, but here is a letter from Wilson describing the facts as he saw them.
I found a report which said: CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.
The New York Post posted a correction to a July 10, 2004 which said: In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report." But what the heck. Iran, Iraq, it's just one letter different, right?
An article from Newsday has this:
A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.
But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."
Another talking point is that Joseph Wilson is a Democrat. In fact, Joseph Wilson was appointed ambassador to Iraq under George Bush Sr. He gave a $1000 campaign donation to George W. Bush in 2000. He was commended for bravery by Bush Sr. Joseph Wilson joined the Kerry campaign *AFTER* this whole debacle happened, at which time he had what can only be termed a justifiable reason for thinking this PARTICULAR Republican had to go.
So far your one article, written in highly partisan style and published in an unapologetically right-wing newspaper, is not doing much to convince me that Joseph Wilson is the consumate liar that the Administration would have us believe.
Liam.
Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:38:00 AM
Hmmm.
A good columnist is a good sleuth.
Nice to see that you do your reading.
A regular Bob Woodward. ....Maybe not the best example, but you know what I mean.
....Sorry, didn't mean to interrup the flow of this thread.......
Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:53:00 AM
I guess it's a matter of whom to believe and one's political leanings, but your interpretation of the facts presented look and feel like spin to me. I do admit that you have more reference points than the article in question, and that the newspaper is definetly a right wing leaning publication but the opposite is true of the sources you quote. I have enjoyed following this line, but when all is said and done it (the whole Wilson affair) will not make a lot of minds in this country change.
Saturday, July 16, 2005 4:03:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home