White House Outs CIA Agent

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

THE FORMER ENVOY, Joseph Wilson, who was acting ambassador to Iraq before the first Gulf War, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to investigate a British intelligence report that Iraq sought to buy uranium there. Although Wilson discredited the report, Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in January among the evidence he said justified military action in Iraq.
Wilson published an article in July alleging, however, that the White House recklessly made the charge knowing it was false.
“We spend billions of dollars on intelligence,” Wilson wrote. “But we end up putting something in the State of the Union address, something we got from another intelligence agency, something we cannot independently verify, in an area of Africa where the British have no on-the-ground presence.”

WHITE HOUSE DENIALS
The next week, columnist Robert Novak published an article in which he revealed that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. “Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate,” Novak wrote.
....

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday night that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether White House officials blew Plame’s cover in retaliation against Wilson. Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1

That she was "outed" is old news. That someone is doing something about it is news.
Whoever did it should be held accountable, there's a law for a reason. It puts people's lives in jeopardy.
And how about Novak? Kind of irresponsible?

[Mr Manifesto]

These days, opinion columnists are less concerned with adding to debate than with how many letters to the editor their columns generate.

As long as there's controvesy, Novak will be happy. As for journalistic responsibility, that can always take second place. Or third.

[subgenius]

Wonder if Novak will be prosecuted.
Wonder if W. will be....what did he know and when did he know it?
Oh, that's right, he don't know nuthin', and nuthin's plenty for him. (Apologies to George Gershwin.)

[subgenius]

Anyone know why Novak did this, and if he is subject to prosecution?

[a_unique_person]

There are intelligence people coming out in Australia, GB and the USA. This is very unusual behaviour for them, as I would think that they are inherently very conservative people who would normally side with a conservative government. This indicates to me that the Iraq invasion was something they think is very unusual and radical.

As to whether or not anything will happen because this guy was outed, nothing will happen. Or, if it does, he will be looked after.

[subgenius]

I'm surprised, because this is the number one story in the USA, there hasn't been more comment on it. But its been unusually quiet here, or am I wrong again?
This is horrible. Someone did it, I don't care who. Its treasonous, as reflected by the law against it to reveal our secret agents (in this case it was a woman).
Regardless of any of the political ramifications, I still don't know why Novak did it, or why he has yet to come under scrutiny for doing it. You just can't reveal that information no matter who you are, even though you may have a right to protect your sources.
That's the decision you make as a "journalist". Even if you have a story (and I still don't understand why the guy's wife's job with the CIA had anything to do with anything), if there's a law against disclosing the information, ya gotta pay the piper.
Again, its against the law, and treasonous, because an individual footsoldier should not be put in jeopardy this way for any reason.
Imagine if it was the "loyal opposition" that revealed the name of a secret agent.
Any mercy for that "journalist" or the source?
Novak said it was a senior administration official. There is no motivation for him to say this if it weren't true, since he violated the law by doing so, and he did so in furtherance of impeaching the agent's husband.

I welcome an explanation of why anyone in the administration (even some low level bureaucrat patsy who will fall on the grenade) would do such a thing.
And I welcome an excuse for Novak revealing the identity of a CIA agent (obviously working for our country) and jeopardizing her life.

[a_unique_person]

If she had given someone a blow job, it might be news.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If she had given someone a blow job, it might be news.
Pithy.

[subgenius]

In the interest of fairness here's Novak's reason for jeopardizing the life of a USA secret agent:

"I made the judgment it was newsworthy. I think the story has to stand for itself. It's 100 percent accurate. I'm not going to get into why I wrote something."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14399-2003Sep28?language=printer

[subgenius]

So to follow the story Novak, who jeopardized the life of a CIA operative, says his story is 100% accurate, which means "two senior administration officials" leaked her name.

Heads should roll.

[subgenius]

Apparently the law applies only to government officials who jeopardize the lives of their fellow servants, but why was her identity newsworthy enough for Novak to reveal?

"It is a violation of law for officials to intentionally disclose the identity of a covert operative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14399-2003Sep28?language=printer

He is a traitor, the others are law breakers and traitors.

[subgenius]

This is the more reasonable journalistic response to such a leak:

"If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14399-2003Sep28?language=printer

Sorry for the multiple posts, but this thing is just unfolding.

[subgenius]

So we'll see what the "Homeland" Security administration thinks about such a breach of security.

Will administration fave Novak be shunned (like old lady Helen Thomas) because even though he had a "right" to reveal a secret agent's identity, its certainly not a good thing, or will he be rewarded?

Oh boy, I can't wait to see what happens next.

By the way, I sang "Rave On" by Buddy Holly at karaoke tonight.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm surprised, because this is the number one story in the USA, there hasn't been more comment on it. But its been unusually quiet here, or am I wrong again?
This is horrible. Someone did it, I don't care who. Its treasonous, as reflected by the law against it to reveal our secret agents (in this case it was a woman).


I admit the lack of discussion on this topic is odd. I don't like to start threads as a rule and was surprised it took so long for one to get started.

Part of the problem is the sheer inexcusable nature of the crime. I don't think any of the usual gang of Bush apologists can put any positive spin on this, especially since they are so fond of calling liberals traitors!

The other problem is the entire current administration is so rife with incompetence and scandal that individual stories likes this are starting to get lost in the noise.

Regarding Novak, I can't imagine what public good could come out of exposing this particular agent. She did nothing but serve her country, exposing her has effectively ended her CIA career and put her life in danger. And for what? What common good is going to come out of this?

If the journalists contacted by the White House (Novak wasn't the only one) have even a shred of integrity and patriotism, they will anonymously reveal their sources so the traitors may be prosecuted.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I admit the lack of discussion on this topic is odd. I don't like to start threads as a rule and was surprised it took so long for one to get started.

Part of the problem is the sheer inexcusable nature of the crime. I don't think any of the usual gang of Bush apologists can put any positive spin on this, especially since they are so fond of calling liberals traitors!

The other problem is the entire current administration is so rife with incompetence and scandal that individual stories likes this are starting to get lost in the noise.

Regarding Novak, I can't imagine what public good could come out of exposing this particular agent. She did nothing but serve her country, exposing her has effectively ended her CIA career and put her life in danger. And for what? What common good is going to come out of this?

If the journalists contacted by the White House (Novak wasn't the only one) have even a shred of integrity and patriotism, they will anonymously reveal their sources so the traitors may be prosecuted.

Good analysis.
I can still see any journalist not revealing even an unsolicited eager traitorous source, but that's different than going ahead and disclosing an agent's identity.

Can't wait for the apologists "spin", I mean justification/explanation. It is taking a while isn't it?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by subgenius

Good analysis.

Thanks! That means alot coming from a veteran.

I can still see any journalist not revealing even an unsolicited eager traitorous source, but that's different than going ahead and disclosing an agent's identity.

I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence, could you try again? If you are suggesting journalists will never reveal their source, I'll say that if the source turns out to be a bigger story then the leak that rule is going to get broke real fast!

Can't wait for the apologists "spin", I mean justification/explanation. It is taking a while isn't it?

Don't hold your breath. I predict the conservative media is going to try and bury this, on the grounds you can't polish a turd.

I also suspect Ashcroft and the Justice Department have inside knowledge of the leak and will suppress it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ashcroft was behind it!

[fishbob]

If the journalists contacted by the White House (Novak wasn't the only one) have even a shred of integrity and patriotism, they will anonymously reveal their sources so the traitors may be prosecuted.
Is a journalist obligated to protect the privacy of somebody that calls them up with unsolicited information?

I would think that a first hand account of the phone call from the unsolicited White House sources would be the real headline story.

[Boo]

Let me see if I got this straight, a journalist publishes the name of an undercover CIA operative and no-one is screaming?

The dichotomy of this country's response to treason confuses me. We invite news crews to war and then pull them, after they broadcast live troop movement and locations, with just a slap of the hand. 35 years ago they had on film a citizen of this country committing treasonous acts and then let her back in. There was a rash of agents taken to trial during the 80's for selling information, including names. Then we hold a citizen of this country in prison because they think, maybe, he misplaced some information located on some computer hard drives. Now there is someone that thinks it's news to print the name of an undercover operative in a paper read world wide.

Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the govenment when it deserves it(Ben Franklin). This country is it's people, in particular the one's that serve with their life. To place them in harms way for polictical gains is inexcusable and yes, that means unnecessary war. Can we still place traitors in front of firing squads?


Boo

(sorry if I am rambling, it's late)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Boo
Let me see if I got this straight, a journalist publishes the name of an undercover CIA operative and no-one is screaming?

The dichotomy of this country's response to treason confuses me. Boo
(snips)
(sorry if I am rambling, it's late)
When he did it I was amazed at the non-reaction.
Only when the CIA itself got the gonads (remember men and women have them) and asked for an investigation has it become news.

The dichotomy is clear once you understand the code. Its the hypocrisy of insider crass big oil amoral selfish self-centered laissez-faire operatives.
The code: everything they say means the opposite.
They are the true believers, if you're against them, you're the traitor, even though they are the ones who betrayed a loyal brave American who passed security clearance and put her butt on the line for her country.

Heads should roll. And Novak, unless he comes up with some reason for what he did should be run out of town on a rail. So far his reason is (see above post).

But all this, and the nebulous reasons for going to war and spending 100's of billions of dollars to do so are less important than private consensual sex, right? OK, and perjury about it, right?

You're not sleepy, you're wide awake.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by fishbob

Is a journalist obligated to protect the privacy of somebody that calls them up with unsolicited information?

I would think that a first hand account of the phone call from the unsolicited White House sources would be the real headline story.

"If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

[subgenius]

Novak's treacherous story came out July 14. The outrage is why there was no outrage until now. Darn liberal media.

[Professor Frink]

If the Justice Department looks into this, will Novak be required to tell them who his sources are? He does know who told him about it, and he is confident that what he printed was true, which means it wasn't just some lame tip. At what point does he have to tell what he knows - doesn't he at some point become accessory to a crime (if he hasn't already committed a crime himself?)

This question is aside from the obvious question of what the he!! was he thinking to print the name like that. Why didn't he instead report that some administration officials revealed the name to him but he won't print it, and call for an investigation.

I hope big news comes of this. This is even bigger than the "16 words" because, if it is true, it is a demonstration of pure malice and cruelty on the part of the Bush administration. I saw that Bush admin officials have promised to cooperate. Goody! They're publicly saying they'll cooperate with a federal investigation! They're outstanding the way they cooperate! "I promise to cooperate with the Justice Department, because that's the kind of guy I am! Not like those people who won't cooperate!"

Frink

[Professor Frink]

Let me be more clear about it - I think that Novak is guilty of a crime, screw journalistic integrity and protecting your sources and "just printing the facts."

Say that two people rob a bank and steal 1000 dollars. Then they go to Novak, and say "here, this money was stolen, take it." If Novak takes the money, and doesn't report who gave it to him, he just spends it, then he is guilty of crimes, not only knowingly receiving stolen goods but protecting the identities of the criminals. (Okay I'm no lawyer, but there is a lot wrong with this scenario, and it is criminal)

In this case he received illegal "goods" (information) and "spent" it (by printing the name) and he is saying "hey, that's good journalism!"

He's guilty of a crime, he revealed to the public the name of an undercover CIA agent. He did it, and he is just as guilty as the people who gave him the name in the first place. Not only did he not try to stop a crime in progress by notifying authorities about his sources, but he deliberately helped the crime succeed by printing the name. Hang 'im.

Frink

[rikzilla]

I've met Mr. Novak, and he is even nastier in person than he is on tv. That he would be involved in outing a CIA agent because of some kind of political vendetta does not surprise me.

I do have small hope that his informant did not emanate from the White House,...but I don't harbor illusions. People in power in this city play a mighty nasty version of hardball. But let's not kid ourselves,...both sides play the game really well.

I think the best, most recent example of bald faced political hardball was during the Florida recount. The Democrat and Republican political big guns were on tv 3 times a day. The worst of it was when the Republicans burst into the Broward County courthouse to physically disrupt the recount, and when the Dems tried to exclude absentee ballots arriving from mostly military locations.

I am saddened when partisan politics hurt this country. This outting of a CIA operative appears to be one such instance. I hope whomever did this thing is caught.

The Repubs are guilty of hounding Mr. Clinton with a 50 million $ investigation that turned up an Oval office BJ...someone should have been jailed for that fiasco. Then Clinton staffers are caught with FBI files on Republican opponents......the beat goes on. :rolleyes:

The White House is calling charges that they leaked this info "ridiculous". So, SG, before you...or I...or anyone else starts going off half cocked I'd suggest that we wait to see the evidence.

The main thing that seperates your view from mine is that I'm willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt, you are not. However you and others in the past have been willing to give Osama, and Saddam the benefit of the doubt by your insistence on seeing "the evidence". Why is that?

I doubt any of us will see any evidence unless Novak rolls over on his sources,...and Novak would never be trusted to hear leaks again if he did,...since I doubt he will comit professional suicide, my guess is that we'll never know.

I am at least as pissed off about this as you are SG. Looky! We have something in common! :D ;)

-z

[subgenius]

rik,
I never said GWB was involved. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I want whoever did it (and I mentioned even low-level patsies) held accountable. It is obviously in GWB's interests now to out them or else the implication will be that he was involved.
Novak said "two senior administration officials". He, as nasty a guy as he is, is considered credible. That is evidence.

I've never given Osama the "BOD", there was ample evidence there. Saddam, a criminal of the highest order, and our action was a decade overdue. That is a different issue from whether there's evidence to support the administration's claims.

The only distinction with the examples of hardball unacceptable "politics" you cited, and this affair, is that this is a breach of national security, and puts someone's life in jeopardy.

As always, we agree on much more than we differ.

[aerocontrols]

It certainly seems that this is as bad as it looks. Whoever did this needs to be stomped on, hard.

If Bush is responsible, then he needs to be impeached. If the Justice Department doesn't get to the bottom of this fairly quickly (6 weeks, max) and produce the guilty parties, then Congress needs to investigate. The first thing that should come to light is the names of the reporters who were allegedly called and whose phone records might match them on the day(s) in question. (The administration didn't take long finding out that Wesley Clark hadn't called Karl Rove as was alleged he claimed.)

The only way that her 'outing' is not a crime by somebody is if her status as CIA personel is not classified. If I were Novak, this would be my defense. It's not a crime for him to say, for instance, that George Tenet works for the CIA. If he doesn't know her status is a secret (and there's nothing in the original article indicating that he did) then why would he refrain from naming her? If Novak's facts are true, then his sources sold this story to him on a nepotism angle. (Wilson only went to Niger because his connected wife arranged for it)

In other words, Novak's defense goes like this:

Look, two high-level people from the White House called me and told me her name and her job as a leak because they knew I was writing a column about her husband. They never told me that her status was classified and that they were committing a crime by passing along this info, nor did they ask me not to expose their crime to the entire world in the pages of a major newspaper. It's reasonable for me to conclude that her status was not, therefore, classified, and that they didn't intend me to keep this a secret, since any reasonable person passing classified intel to a report would at least be smart enough to ask that it remain 'off the record'.

MattJ

[rikzilla]

How terribly, criminally irresponsible!

No matter how many political types she may have pissed off, her outting not only might have cost her her life...what about the lives of people who may have been seen with her in the field. Are there people who were working for US interests being whacked across Africa at this very moment?

Geez, that sucks!
-z

[Sundog]

Originally posted by rikzilla
How terribly, criminally irresponsible!

No matter how many political types she may have pissed off, her outting not only might have cost her her life...what about the lives of people who may have been seen with her in the field. Are there people who were working for US interests being whacked across Africa at this very moment?

Geez, that sucks!
-z

Glad to see you agree. I hope you agree that this is full-blown treason and should be followed to its source, whoever it is.

It's a no-lose situation. If Bush didn't know about it, well and good, let's find out who did and get them in front of a firing squad. If he did, he's not worthy of anyone's support anyway. But we have to know, and someone's head's got to roll.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ashcroft was behind it!

Two words: Karl Rove.

Wonder if Ann Coulter will write a sequel to Treason and include this?

[Silicon]

The apologists are spinning.


The National Review Online says that it's no secret that his wife was a spy, everyone knew it. Well at least Clifford D. May knew it. Of course he knew it because another person who "formerly worked in the government". No big deal.

Gee I wonder WHERE in the government? He says not the White House. I'm guessing State Department.

The way this column writes it, there was no leak. Everyone could figure out that Wilson's wife was the spy. Nowhere is there any mention of the two senior white-house officials calling 6 different reporters. That part falls into the black hole of the passive voice.

But even more than that, they smear Wilson as a lefty, and a critic of the Bush Administration. And they impugn his credibility as an investigator.

They smear him as being "affiliated with the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute". Gee... he might be working for the enemy! Pretty sneaky for an Ambassador who's served under Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. He's "affiliated" with the Mid-East Institute... Could it be BECAUSE he was acting ambassador in that region during Desert Shield (and negotiated the release of hundreds of American Hostages)?

They smear him as a traitor.



Then the play the old saw about none of this being reported in the ....sing with me, folks.... LIBERAL MEDIA-da doo run run run, da doo run run...



Subgenius, THAT'S why there has been no posts from the apologists. THAT'S why nobody has posted here, and why this story has broken so slowly.

The righties had nothing to say. They were waiting for the starting gun, they needed SOMETHING, ANYTHING to start smearing Wilson with.

Never mind that Wilson isn't the story, it's the leaker, Novak, Valerie Plame, et al.



Let's hear more about this traitor:

Ambassador Wilson holds the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Award, the Department of State Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards, and the American Foreign Service Association William R. Rivkin Award.

Yep, he sounds shifty to me!


Look at this article by May, in the National Review, it's line-by-line character assasination, ghost-written by Rove:

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

First, acknowlege the fact that Novak wrote the article. Okay.. mea culpa.

Then, "Who didn't know?" OH, that makes it obvious!?!? Who DIDN'T know? Oh, maybe terrorists!

Then, casually drop that May knew it all along. Not a big secret.

Then, I could have written about it, but I didn't, it was no big deal.

Then, Anyone could have guessed his wife was a spy.

Then, "Mr. Wilson has long been a bitter critic" of Bush. "Writing in such left-wing publications as THE NATION" OH NO!! HE IS A LEFTY!!! Yes, May, everyone reading the National Review KNOWS The Nation is left-wing. Of course, to the National Review, Reader's Digest is left-wing!

Then, He's AFILLIATED with a pro-Saudi think tank! (Yeah, so what? Bush is affilated with a proto-facist Justice department! )

Then, Wilson has flip-flopped on the issue of the Iraq war. That's the Republicans smear du-jour (witness Clark). They never for once suppose that folks who are anti-war now, but WERE pro-war were for it BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED the President.

Then, the unkindest cut of all, he impugns Wilson's ability to investigate Niger at all! Yes, he has no investigation ability. Hmmm... maybe his WIFE was spying while he was sipping tea!

Wo why are we listening to Wilson anyway, he's just a Bush-basher, his wife was doing all of the investigating... and MAYBE...JUST MAYBE... Wilson leaked info about no uranium from Niger that was top secret spy info from his WIFE! AHA!!!


WILSON IS THE TRAITOR!

There's the starting gun, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly.

3....
2...
1..

GO WITH IT!!!!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Silicon


The apologists are spinning.


WILSON IS THE TRAITOR!



3....
2...
1..

GO WITH IT!!!!


that's the lefty tactic.

keep pretending that it's a rightwing conspiracy to make Wilson look bad by releasing secrets about his wife.

you're too emotional to be rational.

very liberal of you.

[Silicon]

NTW,

I see you found the starting gun.

Good work, boy!

[rikzilla]

Are we still subscribing to the 48 hour rule??

If there is actionable evidence against Mr. Rove, etc.. we should hear about it soon. If not, then this is all mental masturbation.

If ANY PERSON, including the President, knowingly compromised national security as has been speculated upon,...they should be brought up on charges, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period.

Alot of people are throwing around alot of assumptions. Assumptions are not facts. If the facts show that Karl Rove did this thing he should be sent to jail. However, facts will have to be gathered and that will take time. This is an incident that fairly screams INVESTIGATE ME!

-z

[subgenius]

I've seen the spin that it was no secret that she was a spy.
A problem with this is why did Novak reveal it as if it was a secret by citing two senior administration officials who leaked it to him, and who he feels the need to protect by journalistic privilege, if it was no secret?
Obviously nothing is a secret to everyone. Things are secret to some and not others. Doesn't get around the law against revealing "secrets."

Rove? Rummy? I have no idea who it was, and don't care.
I don't care if it was some 5th class clerk in a cubicle somewhere. Bush is the one who needs to show that his administration doesn't leak, and I think he will. He was always reputed to be someone who hated this kind of thing.

[Charlie Monoxide]

In this democracy it doesn't pay to criticize the prez.

Charlie (saluting the Patriot Act) Monoxide

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by subgenius
I've seen the spin that it was no secret that she was a spy.


you have to respect my opinion of you, here it is :


Youre a conspiracy spinist and an avid fan of the church of the subgenius.

Nothing you say holds any substance to me at all. Even the title of this thread is so revoltingly irresponsible that I can't believe this forum "of skeptics" even harbors it.

sadly, it does.

You're just another glob of text that I ignore, yet a persistent irritation to anything rational.
but that sjust my opinion.


Why was there no screaming about this in July ?

Why is Wilson using the press to protest about a security problem involving his wife ? Fairly dangerous to her isnt it ?

Why is the quote that Wilson can find no connection between the white house and this being ignored ?

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I think the best, most recent example of bald faced political hardball was during the Florida recount. The Democrat and Republican political big guns were on tv 3 times a day. The worst of it was when the Republicans burst into the Broward County courthouse to physically disrupt the recount, and when the Dems tried to exclude absentee ballots arriving from mostly military locations.

Heh. I don't even know where to start on that subject. I have an odd feeling neither of us was particularly positively impressed by that dance of thieves, too.

I am saddened when partisan politics hurt this country. This outting of a CIA operative appears to be one such instance. I hope whomever did this thing is caught.

My take is that it's treason, outright and simple. Will the Patriot Act be applied to it like it is being applied to simple criminal offenses?

The Repubs are guilty of hounding Mr. Clinton with a 50 million $ investigation that turned up an Oval office BJ...someone should have been jailed for that fiasco. Then Clinton staffers are caught with FBI files on Republican opponents......the beat goes on. :rolleyes:

That was what stunned me. FBI files circulating around the white house got almost no press, and a dirty dress occupied us all for, oh, two years...

Rik, it would seem that sometimes we agree.

It makes me almost wonder, what DID Mr. Bill do that we still don't know about?

[subgenius]

Conspiracy spinist? It was administration-darling Novak who said it was 2 senior adm. officials. Thus the title of the thread. I am hoping Bush wasn't involved and that he will take the appropriate action.
It is the CIA asking for the investigation.
Wilson may not be able to find the connection, but Novak asserts there is one. I don't like the guy, but he is considered credible.

Avid fan of the Church of the Subgenius? Guilty! An ordained minister. Its the best phony religion (I know that's redundant) there is. And quite funny and fun.

I respect your opinion, and OJ is going to find the real killers.

But enough of your hijack of the thread, back to the show.

[jj]

Originally posted by subgenius
Conspiracy spinist? It was administration-darling Novak who said it was 2 senior adm. officials. Thus the title of the thread. I am hoping Bush wasn't involved and that he will take the appropriate action.
It is the CIA asking for the investigation.
Wilson may not be able to find the connection, but Novak asserts there is one. I don't like the guy, but he is considered credible.

Avid fan of the Church of the Subgenius? Guilty! An ordained minister. Its the best phony religion (I know that's redundant) there is. And quite funny and fun.

I respect your opinion, and OJ is going to find the real killers.

But enough of your hijack of the thread, back to the show.

HEY! Slack! Slack! WE MUST HAVE SLACK!

[hammegk]

Perhaps if you pc'foaming-at-the-mouth-libby idiots asked the mods nicely enough, they might delete this "mob of screaming pissants (oops, I meant peasants) with torches aflame". :(

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps if you pc'foaming-at-the-mouth-libby idiots asked the mods nicely enough, they might delete this "mob of screaming pissants (oops, I meant peasants) with torches aflame". :(

Have you, ever in your life, had anything to contribute beyond spite and malice?

[EvilYeti]

Well, Drudgereport is claiming this all a tempest in a teacup now.


'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...


I read from several sources that a contact from the White House had called several journalists, so at this point I don't know what to believe.

I'm going to withold judgement until more information comes to light. Someone is lying.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Someone is lying.

Was that ever in doubt? The only real question is "who".

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


Was that ever in doubt? The only real question is "who".

Until the drudge story I was under the impression that a white house source was cold calling journalists and burning an agents cover. Now Novak is claiming that is not the case.

The crux of the issue is where the source came from, as the CIA obviously feels this is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

[American]

So. Big deal. You can be gay in the CIA, it's just the military where you can't be. I bet a lot of them specifically go for that because it's an alternative for them.

[crackmonkey]

Wilson himself has admitted that he 'misspoke' when he implicated Rove. He admitted that he has no knowledge of Rove's involvement whatsoever. Furthermore, it appears that Wilson's wife was not an 'agent' of the CIA. She was an analyst, but not involved in spying, concealed identities, or controlling field operatives. In other words, her life and health wasn't threatened by the release of this information.
Tempest in a teacup.

[subgenius]

McClellan said White House officials would turn over telephone logs if the Justice Department asked them to do so. But he said Bush had no plans to ask staff members whether they were involved in revealing the name of Wilson’s wife.
....
CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the woman’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said.
The CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said.
....
Novak was not the only journalist that the White House officials tried to interest in the story. A senior administration official cited in a Washington Post report Sunday said two top White House officials called at least a half-dozen journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?vts=092920032110

[corplinx]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
In other words, her life and health wasn't threatened by the release of this information.
Tempest in a teacup.

THATS JUST WHAT HALIBURTON AND THEIR CRONIES IN THE WHITE HOUSE WANT YOU TO THINK!!!!!

sorry, i love to imitate wahoos sometimes

[renata]

Some more news



....

Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."

In addition to Novak's column, an administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to discredit Wilson.

.....

The CIA "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," he said. "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives." Sources said Wilson's wife is a clandestine operations officer for the CIA, now out of the field and working on weapons of mass destruction

....

Wilson said yesterday that he believes Rove "at a minimum condoned the leak," but said he has no evidence Rove was the original leaker. Wilson said that based on reporters' statements, he believes Rove participated in calls that drew attention to his wife's occupation after Novak's column was published. "My knowledge is based on a reporter who called me right after he had spoken to Rove and said that Rove had said my wife was fair game," Wilson said. He said that conversation occurred on July 21.

....

Wilson said a producer from another network told him about the same time, "The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall that we won't use them." Wilson said the series of similar calls he received, which included four journalists from three networks, stopped on July 22, after he appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

NBC anchor Tom Brokaw reported last night that correspondent Andrea Mitchell had such a discussion after the Novak column appeared.

....

A 1982 law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for someone with authorized access to classified information identifying intelligence officers, agents, informants and sources to intentionally disclose that information to anyone who does not have the proper security clearances.


....




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17129-2003Sep29.html


Edited to add in the actual column by Novak. I am not sure anyone has posted it
http://www.intellivu.com/main.asp?brand=&fnum=142

.....

Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.

.....

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

.....

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

.....

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The crux of the issue is where the source came from, as the CIA obviously feels this is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Well, if I was trying to run a covert network, I'd be a tad annoyed if somebody started outing my agents, too!

[Clancie]

Even Novak admits that two senior administration officials leaked the agent's name to him. Whether they did it in person (as he says) or by phone is totally of no importance at all.

I think Wilson's right. This illegal leak has "political vendetta" written all over it. (But it will be nice if as a result it gets rid of Rove....)

[subgenius]

President Bush, saying “leaks of classified information are bad things,” ordered all staffers to cooperate with the probe.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp

For the tempest in a teapot crowd. These things need to be taken seriously. If untrue, no harm, no foul.
As I said before Bush has a rep of not allowing loose lips. Not good for the country, not good for him. He has the greatest interest in finding the culprit, if any.

Found it odd though that he wasn't going to ask his staff if they did it. Don't know why you wouldn't.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by subgenius

Found it odd though that he wasn't going to ask his staff if they did it. Don't know why you wouldn't. [/B]

Two words:

Plausible deniability.


This whole thing is a big fat Christmas present right in the Democrats' lap. I can't deny that.

But this stuff is bad, bad form if there were really laws broken here. We know these folks play nasty, and they're experts in some pretty squirrely stuff.

Whatever the problem, it should be fixed.

[renata]

Is she an analyst, an operative, an agent? I do not know. Novak referred to her as "an Agency operative"



In an e-mail, White House staff counsel Alberto R. Gonzales counsel refers to her as an "undercover CIA employee"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21505-2003Sep30.html

She could be an analyst. I suspect it also could be the case that if an agent, an operative, an undercover employee is identified, CIA will not immediately run out and say- yes, she was a very important undercover agent, her cover is blown! However, it is quite clear Democrats are milking for all it is worth as well. I suspect in the upcoming investigation we will learn quite a bit of interesting things about all participants in the story. According to a commentator on CNN, Wilson backed off a story that Rove was involved in this. Wilson is also apparently a partisan Democrat, supported of the Kerry campaign.

Novak, by the way does not say that the administration called to leak him the story. He dismisses the controversy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21300-2003Sep30.html

Novak, on CNN's "Crossfire," declared that "nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this." He said the information came up while he was interviewing a senior administration official -- a second one confirmed it -- and that the CIA provided confirmation. The CIA "asked me not to use her name but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," Novak said, because a CIA source had told him Plame was an analyst, not a covert operative. "So what's the fuss about? Pure Bush-bashing?" (Wilson told CNN last night that his wife was on the clandestine side of the agency.)



What I want to know is why the White House is investigating this only now, and not after the story appeared, in July. If this was a felony, to reveal an operative's name, then why did they wait?

[subgenius]

Good discussion on the News Hour on PBS tonight.
Card carrying Republican Bush supporter ex-CIA agent denouncing what happened. She was a CIA classmate, an honorable person. The people in the class didn't even know each other's names. Novak's characterization of her as unimportant is wrong.
There is a big principle involved.
Expert in jounalistic ethics: Novak blew it. There was no newsworthy reason to out her. It had nothing to do with the story. Novak is gonna take a big fall on this one.
Once again its the CIA pushing the case. Her identity was something they wanted to protect, as evidenced by the fact they called Novak begging him not to reveal her identity.
Six other journalists contacted by the "source" refused to reveal the identity because of the lack of newsworthiness of it and irrelevence to the issue at hand.
Only purpose in outing her was to smear.
Not good.

[subgenius]

The above CIA agent also was appalled at Novak's "parsing of his sentences like a Clinton lawyer". Novak said on "Crossfire" he didn't know what her job was. Then why take the chance?
He's lying through his teeth.

[subgenius]

For all you that think this is just the dems going overboard (and they may, they have every right to) there is a non-partisan issue here:

"FORMER CIA OFFICIAL TELLS PBS: OUTED OFFICER 'HAS BEEN UNDER COVER FOR THREE DECADES'

A former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department claimed Tuesday night that outed CIA agent "Valerie Plame" was under cover for three decades and was not a "CIA analyst" as columnist Bob Novak has suggested.

Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR.

"I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades."

[The WASH POST reported on Wednesday that "Valerie Plame" is 40 years old]

MORE

Johnson continues: She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...

"For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...

"I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.

"I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."
http://drudgereport.com/matt.htm


This came from the PBS analysis/interview I referred to previously.

Just because someone can make political hay out of this doesn't mean its not a serious issue.
Deal with it, get it over.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If I was an undercover CIA agent from 1989 to 2001, I could be said to have been undercover for three decades. The 80s, 90s and naughties.

That's a fairly charitable interpretation of the comment, though.

[subgenius]

I'm going to forgive his mistake, he was rather upset.

[subgenius]

07/22/03:
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said.
"They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
http://drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

10/01/03:
It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

So, Mr. Novak, which was it: significant or an offhand revelation?

He's going to spin so fast he'll get dizzy.

This guy is a slimeball. And a traitor.
He has said he didn't know what she did at CIA. Then why take the chance? Even if she's low level she was important enough to be covered by the laws protecting her identity.

[EvilYeti]

I've circled around to this being a big deal again. If the CIA thinks its a crime to burn her cover, so do I.

I've been poking around the news sites and found some tantilizing new tidbits of info.

One, apparently Rove was kicked off of the Bush Sr. campaign for using a similiar smear tactic on a rival. So he has a precedent for doing something like this.

Two, the operative in question was managing an overseas intelligence network that monitored attempted black market WMD sales to terrorist networks. That entire operation is now comprimised.

I would suggest everyone read the above paragraph twice, as its fairly imporant.

Whomever leaked this info has put the entire country at risk. This is the worst kind of treason. The responsible party should face a firing squad, not a prison sentence.

[subgenius]

We don't yet know who leaked it to Novak, but we do know for a fact that Novak broadcast it to the world. He should not escape the consequences of his actions.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Anyone here over the age of 25 has seen first hand the kind of minipulation that is being attempted here. Had they been over 35 they would have recognised the poison strains of the imperial presidency under Nixon and the dirty tricks campaign. Why is that whatever end of the spectrum that is in power always try to disimulate the facts and claim that the head executive was "out of the loop" or " protectided by executive privilege" or some such disclaimer that is niether believeable nor true?

Goddamnit have they learned anything since Nixon? Have We?

Someone broke the law. The fact that they served at the pleasure of the President has no bearing. Some bastard outed an operative of the CIA in what looks to be a political payback for utterences to the media by the operative's husbands op-ed piece.

It is against the law.
It is anathema to any professed allegence to this country.
It was not the Journalist who is responciple, it is the source.
Her position (the wife ) has no bearing ( unless you have to define what "is" is )
She held a field operative position and ran agents and operations for years.
She was later an analyst, that her position has any bearing .... see above...all operatives under her pervue ( Humint ) were compromised.

I could go on but its like the old adage : Those who brag about sexual conquests, usually enjoy them the least. The corallery here "Those who shout the loudest about protecting freedom are usually the first to suceed them to the group they identify themselves with.

G.W.Bush "“leaks of classified information are bad things,”
Christ I wish I had this man's clairity of vision to reduce such a complex issue to a nugget o' wisdom.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
.....the operative in question was managing an overseas intelligence network that monitored attempted black market WMD sales to terrorist networks. That entire operation is now comprimised.
And your re-telling the tale? What is that?

Ah, I know: "This is the worst kind of treason. The responsible party should face a firing squad, not a prison sentence." ER, who say dat?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by hammegk

And your re-telling the tale? What is that
I read it last night, watch for it to hit the news shortly.

Ah, I know: "This is the worst kind of treason. The responsible party should face a firing squad, not a prison sentence." ER, who say dat?

I did, its my opinion. And the federal governments as well, treason can result in the death penalty.

[hammegk]

LOL. Now the question is, "Is EvilYeti really that dumb; or that smart?"

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

And your re-telling the tale? What is that?

Ah, I know: "This is the worst kind of treason. The responsible party should face a firing squad, not a prison sentence." ER, who say dat?

Have you done your duty as a good citizen, or are you aiding and abetting this, Hammy?

[HarryKeogh]

well the white house is not ruling out lie-detector tests!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/wilson.cia/index.html

cool, that'll clear up everything!

[Chaos]

Originally posted by hammegk
LOL. Now the question is, "Is EvilYeti really that dumb; or that smart?"

He is probably just that fed up with your government. This is another crime (and not a trivial one) committed by administration members that (probably) no-one will be held accountable for. I´d be fed up too.

[subgenius]

Leak investigation likely to expand
State, Defense departments could be probed, officials say

NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — The investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s name is likely to expand to other Bush administration agencies, including the State and Defense departments, U.S. officials said Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?vts=100220031557

I think the tactic of sliming Wilson for being a "partisan Democrat" is going to backfire. What difference would that make? Would that make outing a CIA agent alright?
By the way he was a contributor to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm going to forgive his mistake, he was rather upset.

Maybe he misheard '13 years' as '30 years'? I'm hard of hearing, and make this mistake a lot.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Chaos


He is probably just that fed up with your government. This is another crime (and not a trivial one) committed by administration members that (probably) no-one will be held accountable for. I´d be fed up too.

Yeah, something about treason, especially during times of war, just pisses me off.

No worry tho, there will plenty of room on the wall for hammegk too!

[hammegk]

Thanks for confirming "that dumb".

I suspected that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
I could go on but its like the old adage : Those who brag about sexual conquests, usually enjoy them the least. The corollery here "Those who shout the loudest about protecting freedom are usually the first to succeed them to the group they identify themselves with.

My favorite quote on this topic is:
The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

[subgenius]

Investigators want access to all electronic records, phone logs, documents, diaries or other items related to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, his trip to Niger in 2002 in a search for Iraqi nuclear intelligence, his wife's relationship with the C.I.A., or any contact with the syndicated columnist Robert Novak and two other reporters who wrote about the Wilson case. The Justice Department notified the White House about the demand in a letter on Thursday night, which the White House publicized on Friday.

The keen interest in Mr. Wilson's trip to Africa in February 2002, taken at the request of the C.I.A., which dispatched him to try to verify accusations linking Saddam Hussein to a quest for nuclear weapons, has surprised current and former law enforcement officials. The wide scope of the records request suggested that the Justice Department wanted to establish not only whether any administration officials had disclosed classified information, but also whether White House records could link the motivation for that leak to information related to Mr. Wilson's African mission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/politics/04LEAK.html?th

The White House has given itself until Tuesday to respond. We're going to have a better weekend than a lot of WH staffers.
Maybe the documents request was broadened, because where do you look for documents of an event you say didn't happen?

[crackmonkey]

I think the fact that he is a partisan colors the interpretation of his comments. His partisanship has ne bearing on his wife's outing, but it does help us understand why he was so determined to implicate Karl Rove with exactly zero evidence.

[Silicon]

Crackmonkey,

Are you SURE he had exactly zero evidence?

His wife works for the CIA you know.

Perhaps she has evidence they aren't sharing with the American people?

Evidence that British operatives believe? huh huh?

Get it?



Oh never mind.

I think it's likely that the word got back to Wilson that it was Rove, but those whisperers dried up once justice got involved. That tends to happen when a firing squad is commissioned.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I think the fact that he is a partisan colors the interpretation of his comments. His partisanship has ne bearing on his wife's outing, but it does help us understand why he was so determined to implicate Karl Rove with exactly zero evidence.
Could say anyone is partisan, does that make it untrue?
He wasn't so partisan when the CIA sent him to Niger. He wasn't so partisan when George H.W. Bush called him a hero.
He has backed off his claim about Rove. I suspect that he, like all of us don't care who it was as long as they get what's coming to them.
Was Novak lying, or do you suspect that two senior administration officials named his wife?

[crackmonkey]

He admitted he had zero evidence about Rove being involved. I have no idea whatsoever about any of this. I have nothing to base any suspicion upon. Rove is as likely as anyone else to be behind this apparent crime, but then again it may be an invention of Novak. Neither angle makes much sense to me; if White House personnel were behind this, trying to get the press to print her name, it is ludicrous to think that it wouldn't get out that they were doing so. What's the bigger story - an ambassador's wife whoworks for the CIA, or that the White House is trying to out a spy? Even if the WHite House personnel were trying to cast doubt on the ambassador's story, didn't they realize that their underhanded tactics would undermine their side an order of magnitude more than the Niger story ever could? If this was a White House leak, it reeks to me of naivete... I can't imagine anyone who has any experience dealing with the press would be behind this. Then again, stranger things have happened...
Novak may have invented this, but I see no motive for him doing so.
I just don't know. It is ugly, though, and the culprits need to be found and punished. Even if it turns out that this isn't technically a crime, the people behind this need to be run out of town on a rail. Even if it's Rove, or Rumsfeld, or Cheney. Or Bush.

[subgenius]

Bush calls leak a criminal act:

" WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said he hoped that the FBI -led criminal probe into who leaked a CIA agent's identity would help plug other unauthorized disclosures to reporters.

"This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action. But also hopefully we'll help send a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop as well," he said. "
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1521&u=/afp/20031006/pl_afp/us_cia_iraq_bush_031006181645&printer=1

Good for him.

[subgenius]

So somebody did it, and if we never find out, does that mean the president can't weed his own garden?

And I still can't believe there isn't more backlash against Novak, for publishing her name for no journalistic reason.

(Side note: From what I've read Plame was a helluva shot with an AK.)
She, and many like her, lead lives that put any Hollywood movie to shame: soccer mom by day, secret agent by night.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by subgenius
So somebody did it, and if we never find out, does that mean the president can't weed his own garden?

And I still can't believe there isn't more backlash against Novak, for publishing her name for no journalistic reason.

(Side note: From what I've read Plame was a helluva shot with an AK.)
She, and many like her, lead lives that put any Hollywood movie to shame: soccer mom by day, secret agent by night.

Bump.

Any info on this?

Subgenius, any links on Plame? I love spy stuff.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Bump.

Any info on this?

Subgenius, any links on Plame? I love spy stuff.
Better google her, I read a recent article 'bout how she was all that and a bag of chips. Good agent, good American. The CIA's really pissed. When you can't always wear a gun your only protection is your cover, and Novak blew it.

[subgenius]

Anyone have a good explanation for why the president would not bother to ask his staff whether they had committed a crime?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Bump.

Any info on this?

Subgenius, any links on Plame? I love spy stuff.

In February 2002, the CIA dispatched Joseph Wilson, a retired ambassador who has held senior positions in several African countries and Iraq, to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein's government had shopped there for uranium ore that could be processed into weapons-grade material. He reported back that Niger officials said they knew of no such effort. His report has since been confirmed by U.S. intelligence officials.

On July 6, Wilson went public, saying the administration had exaggerated the case for war by including the so-called 16 words about uranium and Africa in the president's State of the Union message last January. A day later, the White House acknowledged it had been a mistake to include those words.

Novak's column suggested that Wilson got the assignment to Niger because of his wife, who was working on weapons proliferation issues for the CIA when she was outed. The agency and Wilson said Valerie Wilson was not involved in his selection. Wilson also said he was not paid for the assignment, though expenses for the eight-day trip were reimbursed.

Before the Novak column was published, at least six reporters were contacted by administration officials and allegedly told that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA. Whoever did so may have been trying to undermine the importance of Wilson's trip by implying it had been set up by his wife -- and therefore was not a serious effort by the agency to discover whether, in fact, Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Niger.

The publication of her name left CIA officers aghast. "All the people who had innocent lunches with her overseas or went shopping or played tennis with her, I'm sure they are having heart attacks right now," said one classmate of Plame's who participated in covert operations. "I would be in hiding now if I were them."

Little is publicly known about the career of Valerie Plame (rhymes with "name"), and she did not respond to a request for an interview made through her husband. The CIA also declined to discuss her. But people close to her provided the basics of her biography: She was born in Anchorage, where her father, Air Force Lt. Col. Samuel Plame, was stationed, and attended school in a suburb of Philadelphia. Her mother, Diane, taught elementary school. She has a stepbrother, Robert, who is 16 years older.

Plame was recruited by the agency shortly after graduation from Pennsylvania State University, sources said. She later earned two master's degrees, one from the London School of Economics and one from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium.

Plame underwent training at "The Farm," as the facility near Williamsburg, Va., is known to its graduates. As part of her courses, the new spy was taken hostage and taught how to reduce messages to microdots. She became expert at firing an AK-47. She learned to blow up cars and drive under fire -- all to see if she could handle the rigors of being an undercover case officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, or DO. Fellow graduates recall that off-hours included a trip to the movies to watch the Dan Aykroyd parody "Spies Like Us."

Plame also learned how to recruit foreign nationals to serve as spies, and how to hunt others and evade those who would hunt her -- some who might look as harmless as she herself does now as a mom with a model's poise and shoulder-length blond hair.

Her activities during her years overseas remain classified, but she became the creme de la creme of spies: a "noc," an officer with "nonofficial cover." Nocs have cover jobs that have nothing to do with the U.S. government. They work in business, in social clubs, as scientists or secretaries (they are prohibited from posing as journalists), and if detected or arrested by a foreign government, they do not have diplomatic protection and rights. They are on their own. Even their fellow operatives don't know who they are, and only the strongest and smartest are picked for these assignments.

Five years ago Plame married Joseph Wilson -- it was her second marriage, his third. They crossed paths at a reception in Washington. "It was love at first sight," Joseph Wilson reports. When they met, in 1997, Wilson held a security clearance as political adviser to the general in charge of the U.S. Armed Forces European Command.

For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

Administration officials confirmed that Brewster-Jennings was a front. The disclosure of its existence, which came about because it was listed in the FEC records, magnifies the potential damage related to the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity: It may give anyone who dealt with the firm clues to her CIA work. In addition, anyone who ever had contact with the company, and any foreign person who ever met with Valerie Plame, innocently or not, might now be suspected of working with the agency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58650-2003Oct7?language=printer

The last sentence illustrates the enormity of Novak's treason.

[hammegk]

Wah, wah, wah.

Now, for something completely different:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004158


Was She Covert? Apparently Not.
The Valerie Plame kerfuffle seems to be fuffling out. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times offers "a few pertinent facts" about her career:

First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc"--which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.

Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the C.I.A. and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret. Even her classmates in the C.I.A.'s career training program mostly knew her only as Valerie P. That way, if one spook defected, the damage would be limited.

Now, let's go back to the beginning of this kerfuffle. The Nation's David Corn claimed on July 16 that the identification of Plame as a CIA "operative" in Bob Novak's column two days earlier was a "potential violation" of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, under which, in Corn's words, "it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent."

Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, an employee of an intelligence service is a "covert agent" only if he has worked overseas within the past five years. Thus if Kristof is right, there is no violation here. Where did Corn get the idea that Plame was a covert agent? From her husband, Joseph Wilson, it would appear:

Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

This Joe Wilson is a clever one, isn't he? He didn't actually say his wife was a covert agent, so he can't quite be accused of lying. But if Kristof's account of Plame's career is accurate, Wilson misled Corn (as well as others who followed his lead, including Kristof's colleague Paul Krugman) by making a hypothetical statement based on a premise he knew to be false, which gave journalists hostile to the Bush administration all they needed to make an accusation of criminal wrongdoing.

[subgenius]

So I guess the CIA is incompetent and wrong to pursue this matter. Case closed.
But that brings up the issue of solving the incompetence at the CIA.
Better start a thread, so you can discuss the "real" reason they are pretending to be concerned.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by subgenius
So I guess the CIA is incompetent and wrong to pursue this matter. Case closed.
True, but why does that provide "closure"?


But that brings up the issue of solving the incompetence at the CIA.
Better start a thread, so you can discuss the "real" reason they are pretending to be concerned.

Nah, my threads don't take off; more fun to hijack yours anyway.

The "real" reason of CIA incompetence is obvious (except of course to multicultural moral relativists); too many years of Democrats pretending no real world exists.

[subgenius]

Under pressure over his handling of the investigation into the disclosure of an undercover C.I.A. officer's identity, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday that investigators had made good progress but that he had not ruled out removing himself from the case.

Mr. Ashcroft also left open the possibility of appointing a special counsel to take over the case and of approving subpoenas to reporters in order to find the source of the leak. "I have not foreclosed any options in this matter," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/politics/17LEAK.html?th

Wah, wah, wah. Ashcroft still pursuing, making progress, and even considering a special prosecutor. Hmmm, guess those accusations of democratic overreaching were a little premature.

[TillEulenspiegel]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that brings up the issue of solving the incompetence at the CIA.
Better start a thread, so you can discuss the "real" reason they are pretending to be concerned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be blunt the single most prevalent reason the CIA tends to muck things up and turns a simple surveillance
routine into a Gordian knot , is because the White House ( and it's minions), regardless of the political flavor of it's current occupant, tries to turn it from an neutral observer/ documenter into a political animal.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that brings up the issue of solving the incompetence at the CIA.
Better start a thread, so you can discuss the "real" reason they are pretending to be concerned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be blunt the single most prevalent reason the CIA tends to muck things up and turns a simple surveillance
routine into a Gordian knot , is because the White House ( and it's minions), regardless of the political flavor of it's current occupant, tries to turn it from an neutral observer/ documenter into a political animal.
Which makes its request for an investigation of this matter curious. Or are they just going through the motions to cover themselves?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that brings up the issue of solving the incompetence at the CIA.
Better start a thread, so you can discuss the "real" reason they are pretending to be concerned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be blunt the single most prevalent reason the CIA tends to muck things up and turns a simple surveillance
routine into a Gordian knot , is because the White House ( and it's minions), regardless of the political flavor of it's current occupant, tries to turn it from an neutral observer/ documenter into a political animal.

SInce the Wilson/Plame squalk is rapidly dying out, continuing the hijack, I'd say it would be more correct to say that the CIA is "The Establishment" -- that thing pc'libs are at war against -- so libby Dems do their best to destroy its effectiveness given any opportunity. More opportunities are identified under Dem administrations, since every Dem administration is by definition anti-establishment.

Should we bring up the FBI too? :D

Disclaimer: just my 2cts. ;)

[subgenius]

Some can do no wrong, and the others can do no right.
For some nothing is too good, for the others anything will do.

[subgenius]

I'm sure Mr. h wouldn't mind being outed if he was in Ms. P's position its no big deal:

Plame was outed as part of a longtime dispute between Bush moderates and hard-liners over the strengths and shortcomings of the agency's prewar intelligence on Saddam Hussein. Wilson, who had been sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out rumors that Saddam was seeking nuclear fuel there, went public with his skepticism about that charge in a New York Times op-ed piece in July. Because Wilson's article was the first deep dent in the Bush team's claims about the justification for war, Administration officials were soon working quietly behind the scenes, steering reporters away from his conclusions, dismissing his work as shoddy and charging that he got the Niger mission only because his wife worked on proliferation issues at the CIA. It was that last detail — and the added fact that his wife worked undercover — that sparked a federal criminal probe into disclosing a covert officer's name.

Some Bush partisans have suggested that the outing of Plame is no big deal, that she was "just an analyst" or maybe, as a G.O.P. Congressman told CNN, "a glorified secretary." But the facts tell otherwise. Plame was, for starters, a former NOC — that is, a spy with nonofficial cover who worked overseas as a private individual with no apparent connection to the U.S. government. NOCs are among the government's most closely guarded secrets, because they often work for real or fictive private companies overseas and are set loose to spy solo. NOCs are harder to train, more expensive to place and can remain undercover longer than conventional spooks. They can also go places and see people whom those under official cover cannot. They are in some ways the most vulnerable of all clandestine officers, since they have no claim to diplomatic immunity if they get caught.

Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031027-524486,00.html

[subgenius]

Remember Mr. President Bush his ownself called it a criminal act. If he can't find the perp (and he won't even ask his staff if they did it) what does that say? Nothing I guess.

[subgenius]

For the "no big deal" crowd:

HEMMER: After listening to Larry, it sounds like, essentially the sky is falling in terms of the CIA around the world. Do you see it that way and did you get that sense in the hearing?

MARCHINKOWSKI: Yes, I did. I think the message is out there. This is an unprecedented act. This has never been done by the United States government before. The exposure of an undercover intelligence officer by the U.S. government is unprecedented. It's not the usual leak from Washington. The leak a week scenario is not at play here. This is a very, very serious event.

HEMMER: You are both registered Republicans, right? How concerned are you about the political gain that one side or the other may seek in this?

JOHNSON: That's what we have to get out of this. I don't know, Bill if you have any kids, they've gone to school on "opposite day" where they wear their clothes inside out and wear their shoes on the wrong feet. I feel like we're seeing opposite day. If a Democrat had done this, we would see the Republicans up in arms.

As a Republican, I think we need to be consistent on this. It doesn't matter who did it, it didn't matter which party was involved. This isn't about partisan politics. This is about protecting national security and national security assets and in this case there has been a betrayal, not only of the CIA officers there, but really a betrayal of those of us who have kept the secrets over the years on this point.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/24/cnna.leak/

[DavidJames]

It's amazing how this issue has pretty much dropped from the radar screen. Perhaps it's the age in which we live, perhaps it's the liberal media down playing it, perhaps this would have gotten more attention oh, say, 6 or 7 years ago.

[subgenius]

Doubt that the CIA will let be forgotten.

[subgenius]

Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself Tuesday from the investigation into whether the Bush administration leaked a CIA operative's name to a newspaper columnist, and a career federal prosecutor from Chicago was named as special counsel to take over.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031231/D7VP1S200.html

As they say, "The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly....but exceedingly fine."

Many here deplored the call for outside counsel. Guess it was not so deplorable.
Especially if the investigation exonerates Ashcroft, it is in his interests to not appear to have influenced it, and always was.

[fishbob]

Patrick Fitzgerald (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2001_Oct_24/79407576/p1/article.jhtml)

The guy Ashcroft picked is quite an accomplished prosecutor. I hope he can resolve things quickly. I bet he has to work harder avoiding politics than he does investigating the leak.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, 40, began his prosecutorial career in 1988 by handling significant drug trafficking cases, and prosecuting major heroin smuggling rings. In 1993 he and another lawyer prosecuted, and won convictions against, John Gambino, a capo of the Gambino Crime Family and three other members of the Gambino Crime Family crew for a variety of charges, including murder and racketeering.

In June of 1994, he became counsel in the prosecution of the "blind sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 other defendants, who were accused of a seditious conspiracy involving the bombing of the World Trade Center and a plot to bomb the United Nations, the FBI Building in New York, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and to assassinate President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The nine-month trial resulted in convictions.

The following year, Fitzgerald was named Co-Chief of the Organized Crime and Terrorism Section of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Shortly thereafter he became National Security Coordinator for the Office. In these capacities, he was responsible for supervising the investigation and development and prosecution of the case against Osama Bin-Ladin. He was the chief counsel in the prosecution of those alleged to have perpetrated the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

Fitzgerald participated in the sentencing of four defendants convicted of participating in the 1998 bombings of the two U.S. Embassies in Africa. Earlier this year, Fitzgerald prosecuted the defendants, securing convictions.

[subgenius]

"Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor."
Sounds pretty cool.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by fishbob
[BThe guy Ashcroft picked is quite an accomplished prosecutor. I hope he can resolve things quickly. I bet he has to work harder avoiding politics than he does investigating the leak.
[/B]
Peter Fitzgerald is as ethical and honest as they come. He has shown here in Illinois that he's not afraid to prosecute high level politicians, as his curent prosecution of former GOP Gov. George Ryan (and dozens of cronies) shows. This was an excellent choice, I just hope it doesn't distract him from his day job - prosecuting corrupt Illinois politicians!

[subgenius]

FALFURRIAS, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday sought to distance himself from an investigation into whether someone in his administration illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer.
"I'm not involved with the investigation in any way, shape or form," Bush told reporters here after wrapping up a hunting trip with his father and a family friend.
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/357662|top|01-01-2004::22:03|reuters.html

Good position especially if the probe (as is likely) exonerates you. Then there's no claim of undue influence. Which is why an outside investigator was a good idea all along.
I still am puzzled though at the rationale supporting Bush's decision to not even ask his staff about it at the outset.

[subgenius]

Sources with knowledge of the case tell TIME that behind closed doors at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, nearby the Capitol, a grand jury began hearing testimony Wednesday in the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html

Hope they subpoena Novak, he refuses to testify and they jail him for contempt, the traitor.

[Ladewig]

If you are hoping to see Novak suffer, then cross your fingers that he gives up the name. Then his sources and peers will turn their backs on him.

[subgenius]

A couple of the panelists on the McLaughlin show (gosh that guy is funny) claimed that there will be indictments soon.

Here's an update, though it doesn't mention indictments:

Top Bush Aide Is Questioned in C.I.A. Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President Bush's press secretary and a former White House press aide testified on Friday to a federal grand jury investigating who improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer, the press secretary and a lawyer for the aide said on Monday.

The appearances of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, and the press aide, Adam Levine, reflected what lawyers in the case said was the quickening pace of a criminal inquiry in which a special prosecutor is examining conversations between journalists and the White House.

When he was asked by reporters on Monday whether he had been questioned in the case, Mr. McClellan said he had been filmed by news organizations as he emerged from the federal courthouse. "I think that confirms it for you," he said.

On Monday, a lawyer for Mr. Levine said the White House aide had also appeared on Friday.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/politics/10LEAK.html?ei=5062&en=f1c4039eb4a60440&ex=1076994000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

[Monketey Ghost]

Somebody's gotta pay for that crap.

[subgenius]

Criminal probe implicates Cheney subordinates

Posted: February 13, 2004 - 10:29am EST
by: Jerry Reynolds / Washington D.C. correspondent / Indian Country Today

WASHINGTON - The FBI has traced the criminal exposure of a CIA covert agent to the office of Vice President Richard Cheney, according to the Insight on the News online wire service.

Richard Sale, a United Press International correspondent, quotes unnamed federal law enforcement officials in the Feb. 5 article that has been little-noted by mainstream U.S. media outlets. (Finally though, on Feb. 11, the English Manchester Guardian drew on some of Sale’s information as a source for its own story. The Guardian reported that three of the five individuals under FBI scrutiny worked for Cheney.) These same mainstream outlets have kept the Valerie Plame case in circulation, so that the basic outline is well known. But Sale’s report is early word on widespread speculation that Cheney subordinates leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent.

In a sequence of events first noted in the Washington Post and related exhaustively since, political columnist Robert Novak ended up revealing Plame’s undercover CIA career in print. Novak followed a tip whose trail now leads to the U.S. executive branch. Plame associates and her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, say the exposure has jeopardized her person and canceled her career.

If proven, the leak to the press that "burned" Plame (in espionage slang) could have consequences for other careers too. (The Guardian, for instance, reported that Cheney’s political career is at stake.)

http://www.indiancountry.com/?1076686296

[clk]

Originally posted by subgenius

Hope they subpoena Novak, he refuses to testify and they jail him for contempt, the traitor.

That's a good point subgenius. Why don't they just subpoena Novak and make him talk? I mean, he knows who did it, right? Am I missing something here?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by clk


That's a good point subgenius. Why don't they just subpoena Novak and make him talk? I mean, he knows who did it, right? Am I missing something here?
Yeah, he'd invoke the journalist privilege. But they could jail him for contempt.
While we don't know who leaked it to him, yet, we do know he's a traitor because there was no newsworthiness to leaking her name, in the opinion of journalistic ethics experts.

They don't need him though, they know who did it by now through phone records. Indictments imminent. Then trials. Then pardons.

[clk]

Originally posted by subgenius

Yeah, he'd invoke the journalist privilege. But they could jail him for contempt.
While we don't know who leaked it to him, yet, we do know he's a traitor because there was no newsworthiness to leaking her name, in the opinion of journalistic ethics experts.

They don't need him though, they know who did it by now through phone records. Indictments imminent. Then trials. Then pardons.

I didn't realize there was a journalistic privilege. Is that similar to the 5th amendment? I don't see why they didn't call Novak first, since it's clear he knows who did it. If he talked, then the problem would be solved. If he didn't talk, then they could just jail him and then look through the phone records.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by clk


I didn't realize there was a journalistic privilege. Is that similar to the 5th amendment? I don't see why they didn't call Novak first, since it's clear he knows who did it. If he talked, then the problem would be solved. If he didn't talk, then they could just jail him and then look through the phone records.
The privilege is an outgrowth of the 1st Amendment.
They don't need him though because they have the White House phone records of calls to him.
Although there is apparently no law against what he did it is treasonous nonetheless and he should be ostracized by the community.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius

The privilege is an outgrowth of the 1st Amendment.
They don't need him though because they have the White House phone records of calls to him.
Although there is apparently no law against what he did it is treasonous nonetheless and he should be ostracized by the community.
I care less about the treason than the hypocrisy. I don't think the "outing" is going to make a big difference in our intelligence, such as it is. It is just that Novak has been such a big right-wing cheerleader, that when he gets caught doing something absolutely against every right-wing principle, then he ought to be suffering the rightous wrath of the right. Instead, they shuffle their feet and hem and haw and say nothing much. I want to scream out, "where is this patriotism you people claim to stand for?"

Instead, right wingers whine about Kerry appearing (perhaps) in the background of a photo with that "traitor" Jane Fonda, while ignoring the traitor right under their noses.

[subgenius]

So why wouldn't George just ask his staff about it (see about 3 pages back) if he wanted to "get to the bottom (top?)" of it?
Why? Any answers out there from the cricket brigade?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius
So why wouldn't George just ask his staff about it (see about 3 pages back) if he wanted to "get to the bottom (top?)" of it?
Why? Any answers out there from the cricket brigade?
Duh. They aren't going to admit this sort of thing to "the boss", thereby guaranteeing their election as "sacrificial lamb". They're going to hope it gets lost in the shuffle and their record is unsullied. Really, Sub, you're not usually this naive.:p

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky

Duh. They aren't going to admit this sort of thing to "the boss", thereby guaranteeing their election as "sacrificial lamb". They're going to hope it gets lost in the shuffle and their record is unsullied. Really, Sub, you're not usually this naive.:p
Doh! The point is why didn't he go through the motions of asking, not whether he'd get a response. If he didn't ask because he knew he wouldn't get an honest response, what does that say about his choice of people for his staff. And it looks like he doesn't really want to know. You always give someone the opportunity to 'fess up. Saves a lot of money, and gives you two reasons to fire them if they lie.
And you're not usually that contumelious. ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius

Doh! The point is why didn't he go through the motions of asking, not whether he'd get a response. If he didn't ask because he knew he wouldn't get an honest response, what does that say about his choice of people for his staff. And it looks like he doesn't really want to know. You always give someone the opportunity to 'fess up. Saves a lot of money, and gives you two reasons to fire them if they lie.
Bosses who get the most loyalty out of their staff are those who "stand behind" their people. Bush could have asked in private under the agreement that he would do his best to protect the offender, but we'll probably never know. Politically, it might have been wise to have asked publicly, thereby scoring points with the people. So in answer, (the real answer, not the contumelious one), I'd agree he was politically stupid not to do so. It wouldn't be the first time.


Originally posted by subgenius
And you're not usually that contumelious. ;)
Great word, contumelious. Thank you. I shall make it a more regular part of my lexicon.

But you are wrong. I am often contumelious, just not usually to the good guys. ;)

[subgenius]

"So in answer, (the real answer, not the contumelious one), I'd agree he was politically stupid not to do so."
That was my point.
It sure didn't go over well with me.
Effluvial ordure.
(Although it would sound good whispered in your lover's ear, you wouldn't want to be around when they look it up.)

[subgenius]

Rumsfeld publicly threatened criminal prosecution whenever "classified information dealing with operations is provided to people who are not cleared for that information."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-012306-4708r.htm

[fishbob]

"This is not a criminal action," the secretary of defense told Bush over a secure line. "This is war."

Rumsfeld's instant declaration of war, previously unreported, took America from the Clinton administration's view that terrorism was a criminal matter to the Bush administration's view that terrorism was a global enemy to be destroyed.
Of course the Sec of Defense has no authority to declare war, but he could certainly use his influence to urge the President to push for war.

Criminal status meant that the terrorists were a bunch of low-life thugs to be caught, tried, and punished. War status means that the terrorists are an organized force with political aims to be battled and defeated.

If you were a terrorist, which status would you prefer?

[subgenius]

If you're a citizen which would you prefer it to be?

[subgenius]

Subpoenas for White House

WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.

Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.
....
That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria. That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.
......
The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.

A little-known group

It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usleak053695946mar05,0,4860143.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

[subgenius]

Edited to delete the deadly double post.

[subgenius]

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html

Interesting on two points:

Why the need to circulate a story that was already in the major news media? The president has admitted to not reading the newspapers, but I would guess that at least some of the staff do. The article suggests that the further spreading was to give the story "legs."

His opinion that disclosing the identity of a CIA agent who was the WIFE of a "critic" was a legitimate means to counter criticism.
Wilson by the way was hired by the government to investigate the claims and honestly reported his findings. He was proved correct. Taking action against him would have been bad enough.

Kind of a case of "shoot the messenger's wife."

[subgenius]

Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name
By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: April 2, 2004

WASHINGTON, April 1 — Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.
In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself.

The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, lawyers with clients in the case said. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.
.....
The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements by various witnesses in F.B.I. interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House.

At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity came after someone discovered her name among classified documents circulating at the upper echelons of the White House. It could be a crime to disclose information from such a document, although such violations are rarely prosecuted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02LEAK.html?th

Just another Democratic witch hunt. Oooops, he's a Republican.

[subgenius]

Wilson Names Three Possible CIA Leakers
....
Columnist Robert Novak has said only that "two senior administration officials" were his sources.
....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

Still can't figure out why Bush refused to even ask his staff if they did it.
Any plausible reason you can think of?

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two journalists, including NBC's Tim Russert, have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department in the investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, according to the journalists' media outlets.
...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/22/journalists.subpoena/

Why doesn't the president ask his staff who did it?
We know for a fact one of them did.
Why doesn't he ask them?

[crackmonkey]

I thought he did discuss it with the staff some time ago...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I thought he did discuss it with the staff some time ago...
He specifically indicated he did not and would not ask them if they did it.
No one has offerred any, much less reasonable, explanation for why.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by subgenius
He specifically indicated he did not and would not ask them if they did it. No one has offerred any, much less reasonable, explanation for why. I know! I know! Because none of them got a blowjob!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I know! I know! Because none of them got a blowjob!
Compare the number, and substance, of investigations into the potential wrongdoings of this administration with that of the previous.
Shall we make a list?

[subgenius]

9/11 Commission.
CIA Agent Outing.
WMD Intel Failure, re: going to war.
Iraqi Torture.
Medicare Misinformation.
etc.
But the good news, no BJ's

[shemp]

Originally posted by subgenius
9/11 Commission.
CIA Agent Outing.
WMD Intel Failure, re: going to war.
Iraqi Torture.
Medicare Misinformation.
etc.
But the good news, no BJ's

How do you know? Doesn't Mrs. Shrub give him a hummer now and then?

[subgenius]

CBS has just reported that Bush has retained an attorney in connection with a possible subpoena to testify before the grand jury.

[demon]

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Asks Outside Attorney To Represent Him In CIA Leak Case
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- President George W. Bush has sought the help of an outside lawyer to represent him in the probe into who leaked the name of a CIA operative to a newspaper columnist, CBS News reported Wednesday night.

Believing that Bush will be interviewed or asked to testify before a grand jury, White House officials confirmed that the president has put a Washington attorney "on hot stand-by," CBS News reported.

The identity of the Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame, was disclosed last July by columnist Robert Kovak who said he got the information from administration sources. Plame's husband is former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had publicly challenged the administration's claim that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa.

Bush has said he has no tolerance for such leaks and has said in the past he had no idea if the person who leaked the information would ever be found.

CBS News reported that no one so far has suggested that Bush had anything to do with the leak or even knew about it before it became public.

The outside attorney is Jim Sharp, CBS News reported.

There was no indication that was a target of the leak investigation, but the president has decided that "in the event that he needs his advice," he would retain him," White House deputy Claire Buchan said, according to The Associated Press reported.

"The president has said that everyone should cooperate in this matter and that would include himself," Buchan said.

She deflected questions about whether Bush had been asked to appear before a grand jury in the case.

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040602\ACQDJON200406021849 DOWJONESDJONLINE001156.htm&selected=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.nasdaq.com/asp/gmWorldNews.asp&headl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always thought Bush was too stupid to actually be cognizant of the things Rove gets up to .

BTW, wasn`t Joseph Wilson one of the US abassadors who signed that statement critical of Bush & cabal's warmongering politics in the ME?
In any case, he has some prominent supporters.

[subgenius]

So why wouldn't he ask his staff who did it?
Been asking this question for months.

[crackmonkey]

Is it customary for an executive to question his employees about such matters when there's an investigation being conducted? Frankly, I think it could lead to some conflict-of-interest issues. Isn't it better to ask everyone to cooperate fully and not potentially disrupt the investigation?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Is it customary for an executive to question his employees about such matters when there's an investigation being conducted? Frankly, I think it could lead to some conflict-of-interest issues. Isn't it better to ask everyone to cooperate fully and not potentially disrupt the investigation?
That don't fly. But nice try.

[subgenius]

June 5, 2004
Cheney Reportedly Interviewed in Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, June 4 — Vice President Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by federal prosecutors who asked whether he knew of anyone at the White House who had improperly disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, people who have been involved in official discussions about the case said on Friday.

Mr. Cheney was also asked about conversations with senior aides, including his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, according to people officially informed about the case. In addition, those people said, Mr. Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name the officer. It was not clear how Mr. Cheney responded to the prosecutors' questions.
...
It is not clear when or where Mr. Cheney was interviewed, but he was not questioned under oath and he has not been asked to appear before the grand jury, people officially informed about the case said.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/05/politics/05LEAK.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

[Ladewig]

Today President Bush was questioned about what he knows about the matter. Calm down, you Democrats, there is no chance of impeachment because he was not under oath during the questioning.

Washington Post (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040624-022528-5210r.htm)


__________
October 2003, the president does his very best Sgt. Schultz impersonation.

GWB: "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea."

[CapelDodger]

from subgenius:
So why wouldn't he ask his staff who did it?
Has he asked them if he knew about it? Don't know, can't tell. That'll be $5m dollars, Mr President.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from subgenius:

Has he asked them if he knew about it? Don't know, can't tell. That'll be $5m dollars, Mr President.
We're not even wondering if he asked them if he knew about it, but who the hell did it. There is no question that someone did. Why not save the taxpayers millions of dollars of investigation money? (The answer should be obvious.)

But apparently we are in a new era of ignorance is bliss.

My thanks to all who keep this issue alive.

I'll tune in, in in 24 months, and see how it all came out.

[subgenius]

bum

[WildCat]

bum
Subgenius! Glad you're out, and back. I hope you're doing OK.

[subgenius]

history

[fishbob]

Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/06/BAGMAOCRMA24.DTL)

Bottom line:

The month-long trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that White House officials at the highest level conducted a campaign to discredit those who questioned their declarations about Iraq's weapon capabilities -- declarations that turned out to be wrong.

And the testimony showed that President Bush was either lying about the White House role in outing a CIA officer at the center of the scandal, or kept in the dark by top aides who deliberately defied his orders to come forward.

[Schneibster]

How do you know? Doesn't Mrs. Shrub give him a hummer now and then?I have a great deal of trouble imagining that. Perhaps it's as much a matter of not really wanting to as anything.

[Upchurch]

Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/06/BAGMAOCRMA24.DTL)

Bottom line:
Is it at all reasonable that Libby would have done this on his own with no direction from higher up?

[Azure]

What did Libby do? Forget something? Oh no, 25 years in prison because he forgot something.

Lie? Is he being charged for something that he committed before our after he was arrested?

[gnome]

Wow, the universal defense against Perjury... "I FORGOT"... should win every time, hmm?

[Azure]

Wow, the universal defense against Perjury... "I FORGOT"... should win every time, hmm?

Sure.

I find it funny that people are bending over backwards to try and charge Scooter with 'anything.' If the initial evidence doesn't hold up, charge him with perjury.

Works everytime.

[Darth Rotor]

Azure, why are you defending a liar? If you want to get involved in a Conspiracy, watch an illegal action take place, and then cover it up. That is conspiracy to defraud someone, in this case the US government.

If Scooter had told the truth, he'd not be going to jail. Who is worth your integrity, Azure? To whom will you sell your good name?

A man's word is his bond, or he is not a man.

DR

[Azure]

I'm not defending a liar.

This whole trial and process had politics written all over it. That much is obvious by the comments made here, trying to bring Cheney into the fray, or blaming Cheney for outing Plame, when he never did anything like that.

The facts are...

.....
In 2003 and 2004, intense speculation about Libby centered on the possibility that he may have been the administration official who "leaked" the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee whose identity was classified.
....

But,

....
On August 30, 2006, The New York Times reported that Deputy Secretary of State Department Richard Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's article of July 14, 2003, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative".[19] CNN reported also that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as disclosing Mrs. Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak.[20][21]
....

According to this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

It is a federal crime to give information about NOC...or any CIA agent working undercover.

Why the hell is Libby being charged, while Novak gets free reign?

Prejury? A weak excuse for a jury that was looking to make heads roll, but came up short. Shucks....next time they better file a civil suit against Libby, Cheney and Karl Rove...but later amend it when they figure out the jokes on them, and those 3 people aren't guilty. You know, like the Wilson's did.

[gnome]

How do you feel about the accusations of Perjury on Clinton?

[Azure]

How do you feel about the accusations of Perjury on Clinton?

A bit different, but the same crap.

But I find it a bit strange that you can forget having sex with someone.

Unless she/he was someone you 'want' to forget.

[Darth Rotor]

But I find it a bit strange that you can forget having sex with someone.

Unless she/he was someone you 'want' to forget.

If the blow job was memorable, I'd recall. If it was a bad one, I'd tend to recall that, as a bad blow job is rare.

Monica, if I am in my early 50's? Good looking enough, enthusiastic, and orally energetic. What's not to like, if my wife already stays with me after the Jennifer Flowers matter is national knowledge?

DR

[gnome]

A bit different, but the same crap.

But I find it a bit strange that you can forget having sex with someone.

Unless she/he was someone you 'want' to forget.

I'll give you points for consistency then.

[fishbob]

Is it at all reasonable that Libby would have done this on his own with no direction from higher up?

Nope.
Not a chance.

[Darth Rotor]

Nope. Not a chance. He's Dick Cheney's bitch, and will soon be Bubba's bitch. I guess bitchery is a profession with its ups and downs, its ins and outs, its plusses and minuses.

Fixed it for you.

DR

[fishbob]

I'm not defending a liar.

The testimony is difficult to reconcile with Bush's public insistence that he wanted to know the identify of the leakers.

Asked about the case in September 2003, for instance, Bush told reporters in Chicago that "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified action, I'd like to know about it, and we'll take the appropriate action.''

Testimony at the trial makes clear that at the time of Bush's statement, Karl Rove, his top political aide; Ari Fleisher, his press secretary; Richard Armitage, the No. 2 man at the State Department; and Libby had each discussed the matter with reporters before Bush's statement.

If Bush didn't already know the identify of the leakers, his top aides were willfully defying his instructions.

Yes, you are.

source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/06/BAGMAOCRMA24.DTL)

PS: Thanks DR, for correcting my unfortunate omission.

[Schneibster]

Here's what I love.

During depositions, the plaintiff's lawyers ask the defendant, "Did you have sex with Monica Lewinski?" Being smart enough to pour sand out of a boot with instructions on the heel, the defendant says, "What do you mean by 'sex?'"

So the plaintiff's lawyers go off and they come up with this convoluted definition of "sex." Hey, there's ten-fifteen lawyer jokes right there, man. Then they run it by the judge, and she approves it. So right there, you've got the court telling the defendant a precise definition of what they are asking, no questions, no doubts, no horses&&t.

So the defendant takes this definition with rubber gloves, steel gauntlets, and a ten-foot pair of tongs, and drags it off to his lawyers, and says, "Hey, what do I say to this?" So they look it over, and go, "Well, what did you do?" So he tells them, and they go off and think about it, and there's another dozen lawyer jokes, and they come back and go, "Well, according to this definition, the correct answer is, 'no.'"

So he goes back and tells them, "No."

And gets accused of perjury.

Nice.

Nobody with even a nodding acquaintance with the truth and the basic intelligence of the average sessile underwater life form believes that crap, man. He was asked a question, he asked that the terms the question used be defined, they were, he evaluated his actions against those terms, and he answered truthfully.

Now, colloquially speaking, did he have sex with her? Of course he did. Does his wife think so? Bet your ass she does. Was it wrong? Hell yes, on several levels.

But that's not the question. The question is, did he answer the question he was asked, a question that has nothing to do with the colloquial definition of sex, because it was asked by lawyers (and there's several more lawyer jokes for the afficianados among us) in the setting of depositions for a lawsuit, truthfully?

That's the only objective evaluation you'll ever see of what happened to Bill Clinton, and it's all a matter of public record. Anything else relies either on confusion in the minds of people who after watching a hell of a lot of Perry Mason really oughta know better, or on partisan hatred. Hey, if I can compliment one of Bush's daughters on her good deeds, what's the matter with y'all?

[Azure]

Nope.
Not a chance.

Evidence?

My God you people are pulling out all the stops to blame this administration.

[Azure]

That's the only objective evaluation you'll ever see of what happened to Bill Clinton, and it's all a matter of public record. Anything else relies either on confusion in the minds of people who after watching a hell of a lot of Perry Mason really oughta know better, or on partisan hatred. Hey, if I can compliment one of Bush's daughters on her good deeds, what's the matter with y'all?

You see, I think the whole process against Clinton was dumb, stupid and ridiculous.

Just like I think the process against Libby is dumb, stupid and ridiculous.

[Darth Rotor]

You see, I think the whole process against Clinton was dumb, stupid and ridiculous.

Just like I think the process against Libby is dumb, stupid and ridiculous.
Scooter is going down for the same reason Martha Stewart did: bearing false witness during a formal federal investigation. His problem is that he's not going to be able to decorate his cell as well as she did.

DR

[fishbob]

Evidence?

My God you people are pulling out all the stops to blame this administration.

I don't have to pull out any stops to blame this administration.
See post 160. Read the linked article. Then do some research on your own.
Google and about 5 minutes will find you more than you can read in one night.

After you do this, then please reconsider your claim that you are "not defending a liar". Maybe even consider that my opinion has considerable basis in fact, that the lead guys in this administration are a bunch of power-grubbing twits of limited competence, unworthy of the positions they hold.

[Luke T.]

It is interesting that Libby was not charged with any crime for leaking Plame's occupation.

[Darth Rotor]

It is interesting that Libby was not charged with any crime for leaking Plame's occupation.
What is more interesting is the apparent lack of discipline on Armitage. I'll dig around, but I don't think he's been held accountable.

ETA:

Here is what was reported in the Chicago Sun Times (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060908/ai_n16724293):


==snip==
Confirming that he was the source of a leak that triggered a federal investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he never intended to reveal Plame's identity.

He apologized for his conversations with Chicago Sun-Times syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.

"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said.
== snip ==
Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.
== snip ==
He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.' "

He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer.
So, let me get this straight. Richard Armitage was never a target of the investigation, and the President stated that he'd find whoever outed Mrs Plame. The Number 2 Guy at State might or might not be someone you have people question if the wife of one of his ambassadors, all of whom work for State, has been outed.

Ya think Clouseau might have done a better job?

Armitage resigns. Is there a statute of limitations on the regulation he broke in outing a CIA officer? Has he been pardoned? Is his apology sufficient? This loose end is troubling, though it appears that the Wilson's have forgiven him. (http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=3140)
============= digs around a bit ============
ETA #2: to frame this matter more clearly:

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html)

United States Code, TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION, Section 421-426.

Congress enacted this law thanks to former CIA officer Philip Agee repeatedly blowing the covers of CIA officers. Agee, a malcontent and self described Marxist, published field officers' names in the mid '70s with the intent of compromising ongoing covert operations. People died thanks to that jackanape.

The IIPA makes it a criminal offense punishable by 10 years in prison and up to a $50,000 fine for:

1) a government official with access to classified information to (Armitage was one such)
2) knowingly reveal to an unauthorized person a covert agent's identity while (Yes, though the "error" bit may be a successful defense)
3) the United States is "taking affirmative measures" to conceal the agent's identity. (Apparently that was the case) (Covert agent must have been working outside the United States in the past five years for the law to apply.) I forget how this applies to Plame.
4) The term "covert agent" means -
a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
And it goes on to list non Citizen agents and their status.

I didn't figure out the statute of limitations, nor if Armitage is still liable for a charge under this statute.

PPS: Subgenius, it appears that your title for post number 1 was incorrect. Foggy Bottom, not the White House, appears to have been the outing agent. Armitage's silence hardly helped you there. FWIW, in 20/20 hindsight.

DR