cicerone imposter wrote:okie, Just because the Wilson's might be media hounds (now), that doesn't prove they outed themselves. As for the "who's who in America," it only identifies Valerie as his wife; nothing more or less.
So what exactly is your point?
My point is there is ample reason to question the character and motives of the Wilsons, and the identity of her and her job was not a giant leap for anyone curious about it.
Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled
By John Crewdson
Tribune senior correspondent
March 11, 2006, 12:33 PM CST
WASHINGTON -- The question of whether Valerie Plame's employment by the Central Intelligence Agency was a secret is the key issue in the two-year investigation to determine if someone broke the law by leaking her CIA affiliation to the news media.
Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald contends that Plame's friends "had no idea she had another life." But Plame's secret life could be easily penetrated with the right computer sleuthing and an understanding of how the CIA's covert employees work.
When the Tribune searched for Plame on an Internet service that sells public information about private individuals to its subscribers, it got a report of more than 7,600 words. Included was the fact that in the early 1990s her address was "AMERICAN EMBASSY ATHENS ST, APO NEW YORK NY 09255."
A former senior American diplomat in Athens, who remembers Plame as "pleasant, very well-read, bright," said he had been aware that Plame, who was posing as a junior consular officer, really worked for the CIA.
According to CIA veterans, U.S. intelligence officers working in American embassies under "diplomatic cover" are almost invariably known to friendly and opposition intelligence services alike.
"If you were in an embassy," said a former CIA officer who posed as a U.S. diplomat in several countries, "you could count 100 percent on the Soviets knowing."
Plame's true function likely would have been known to friendly intelligence agencies as well. The former senior diplomat recalled, for example, that she served as one of the "control officers" coordinating the visit of President George H.W. Bush to Greece and Turkey in July 1991.
After the completion of her Athens tour, the CIA reportedly sent Plame to study in Europe. According to her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame was living in Brussels when the couple first met in 1997.
Two years later, when Plame made a $1,000 contribution to Vice President Al Gore, she listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a Boston company apparently set up by the CIA to provide "commercial cover" for some of its operatives.
Brewster-Jennings was not a terribly convincing cover. According to Dun & Bradstreet, the company, created in 1994, is a "legal services office" grossing $60,000 a year and headed by a chief executive named Victor Brewster. Commercial databases accessible by the Tribune contain no indication that such a person exists.
Another sign of Brewster-Jennings' link to the CIA came from the online résumé of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an "engineering consultant" from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA "case officer," the agency's term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants.
On Wednesday the Tribune left a voice mail and two e-mail messages asking about the juxtaposition of the attorney's career with Brewster-Jennings and the CIA. On Thursday, the Brewster-Jennings and CIA entries had disappeared from the online résumé. The attorney never returned any of the messages left by the Tribune.
CIA veterans doubt cover
After Plame left her diplomatic post and joined Brewster-Jennings, she became what is known in CIA parlance as an "NOC," shorthand for an intelligence officer working under "non-official cover." But several CIA veterans questioned how someone with an embassy background could have successfully passed herself off as a private-sector consultant with no government connections.
Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, "never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover's completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I'd go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I'd pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I'd give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever."
Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period."
After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: "You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don't drive into headquarters with your car, ever."
A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame "may not be alone in that category, so I don't want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point."
According to Fitzgerald, the chief federal prosecutor in Chicago who was tapped to head the Plame investigation, Plame's "cover was blown" in July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak disclosed that Plame "is an agency [CIA] operative on weapons of mass destruction."
Two senior Bush administration officials, Novak said, had told him that Plame suggested sending her husband, former ambassador Wilson, to Africa to look into reports that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium ore from the nation of Niger.
A motive to leak?
Novak's column followed by eight days an op-ed article by Wilson in The New York Times recounting his failure to find any evidence of such a purchase during his visit to Niger.
Wilson was responding to President Bush's assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address, on the eve of the war with Iraq, that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative is a violation of the federal Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Although prosecutor Fitzgerald has yet to accuse anyone of violating that law, he won a grand jury indictment charging former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby with perjury and obstructing justice for allegedly making false statements under oath about how and when he learned of Plame's CIA employment, and when he told reporters.
Libby's lawyers, who now question whether Plame's CIA employment really was secret at the time Novak's column appeared, have asked a federal judge to provide them with documents that bear on that issue.
If Plame's employment was not a legitimate secret, and if the national security was not harmed by its disclosure, Libby's lawyers argue, their client would have had no motive to lie about his conversations with reporters.
Fitzgerald has told the court he does not intend to introduce evidence showing that Plame's career, the CIA's operations or the national security were harmed by the disclosure of her CIA affiliation.
Plame's lawyer, Christopher Wolf, said his client would have no comment on any aspect of her CIA career. The CIA also declined comment on any aspect of the Plame case.
---
[email protected]
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Joe Wilson's 'Secret' Wife
As we noted yesterday, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby does not allege that Valerie Plame, the long-suffering wife of Bush-hating egomaniac Joe Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. It does, however, claim that Plame's "employment status was classified" and that before July 14, 2003, when her name appeared in a column by Robert Novak, her "affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."
We guess that depends what you mean by "common." It seems that at least two journalists knew that Plame worked for the CIA long before the kerfuffle that bears her name was a gleam in the eye of Angry Leftists. From the New York Sun, July 6, 2005:
Among the letters submitted by [Time's Matt] Cooper [to the judge considering whether to compel his testimony] was one from a former Time White House correspondent, Hugh Sidey. "In this case it seems to me the protection of a source transcends the other considerations,which do not seem to threaten national security," he wrote.
Mr. Sidey said in an interview that the identity of the CIA operative, Ms. Plame, was widely known--well before Mr. Cooper talked to his sources. "You know this game as well as I do," Mr. Sidey said. "That name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."
And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript not available publicly online):
Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
PAUL GIGOT: Welcome to THE JOURNAL EDITORIAL REPORT. Here's a quick summary of the question that consumed much of political Washington this week: Can President Bush's close friend and adviser, Karl Rove, survive accusations he took part in leaking the identity of a CIA agent? The answer is probably yes, but not before Democrats take full advantage of the chance to bloody him.
The news this week was that Rove had been a source for a report that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson -- a critic of the Bush policy in Iraq -- had been given a CIA consulting job because his wife recommended him, and she worked for the agency. Rove's lawyer says Rove disclosed only that fact, not her actual name, and thus did not break the law. Democrats said that the news contradicted earlier statements by Rove and by the White House spokesman that Rove was not involved, and they said the president should fire Rove whether or not he committed a crime.
With me to discuss all this are: Dorothy Rabinowitz, a columnist and member of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial board; Kim Strassel, a senior writer for the editorial page; and James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com, who has been following the Rove story especially closely.
James, let's deal with the facts in the law here first. What kind of legal jeopardy is Karl Rove in, based on what we know now?
JAMES TARANTO: On a scale of one to 10, Paul, I would say roughly a zero. Look, the allegation is that Rove violated something called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This is a 1982 law that's meant to shield the identities of covert CIA agents. In order to be a covert CIA agent under this law, you have to be stationed overseas or to have been stationed overseas sometime in the past five years. Joe Wilson in his book acknowledges that his wife's last overseas assignment was in 1997, six years before this so-called leak took place. There's no crime here ...
... PAUL GIGOT: So, Dorothy, politics going on here?
DOROTHY RABINOWITZ: Politics. Well, it is hilarious to anybody who remembers. And it's not a chuckle, it's now important. The CIA has been the object of slander and assault by various quarters of the left for as long as anybody can remember. It's been held responsible, along with all of our other intelligence operations, for floods, famine, fire, assassination, the subject of endless movies. And now, yesterday, moveon.org held demonstrations in which people were holding up signs saying "Protect our Intelligence Agencies." They are the most important agencies, the CIA. Am I dreaming?
PAUL GIGOT: Well, Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York who appeared with Joseph Wilson in a press conference this week to attack the White House and to say that Karl Rove should have his security clearance pulled, actually voted against that 1982 Intelligence Act. So there is a suggestion that maybe there is a little politics going on here.
What about Joseph Wilson's role here? This all started, Kim, back in 2003 with an Op-Ed piece in THE NEW YORK TIMES by Joseph Wilson saying that he had gone to Niger to look into charges that somehow Saddam Hussein had been seeking yellow cake uranium from that country. He found nothing, he said, and this proved that Bush was lying about the War.
KIM STRASSEL: Right, this has to be put into that perspective, because this is how it actually all started. Joseph Wilson writes this Op-Ed piece. No one asked him to do it. Here he comes out. He blasts the president. We have since found out he's a very big partisan. He doesn't like the administration.
PAUL GIGOT: Join the Kerry campaign.
KIM STRASSEL: Join the Kerry campaign, exactly. And so when you're looking at what Rove or anyone else said, it was in this sort of context, because he was out there -- in writing this Op-Ed he put himself up as fair game for people to look into, he put his claims up as fair game, and indeed the Senate Intelligence Committee later came out and said that he was not correct in his assessments of what he'd actually found in Niger.
But when we're talking about what Rove and everyone else did, they were basically saying to the press, look, if you're going to just take this guy at face value, you might want to look at some of the things behind him that are driving what he's actually saying in the press.
PAUL GIGOT: James, this was done in the middle of an election campaign, when we were in the hothouse political season. And clearly Wilson's motive was to damage Bush's credibility on the war.
JAMES TARANTO: Well, that's right. And Wilson denied that his wife had had anything to do with his getting this Niger gig. The Senate Intelligence Committee also refuted that, and found that in fact she had recommended him.
The Kerry campaign had brought Wilson on as a foreign policy adviser, and had really touted him as an adviser. They set up a special web site called -- I love this -- restorehonesty.com. After Wilson was discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee, that web site went down. It just redirected to the Kerry campaign's main page. Every reference to Wilson and Plame disappeared from the Kerry web site. He became a non-person in the Kerry campaign, very quietly ...
okie, While you consider the motives of the Wilsons', why haven't you given it the equal consdieration to the Bush administration where most the motive and answers can be found - if you're honest with yourself.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, While you consider the motives of the Wilsons', why haven't you given it the equal consdieration to the Bush administration where most the motive and answers can be found - if you're honest with yourself.
Before answering your question, cicerone, thanks to timberlandko for the information posted.
cicerone, I have given consideration to all angles of this. It is simply a matter of analyzing the personalities and the evidence, and then connecting the dots.
Here are the facts:
The outing of Valerie Plame by current figures in the administration has never been established as a crime, for at least 2 reasons, one being the failure to show she is a covert agent, and the other being a failure to show intent of the leaker.Quote:What Wilson has done has never been shown to be a crime. There isn't even enough to open a criminal investigation. So on this point the Bush administration has more dots.
Quote:In order for Novak to connect any dots he had to be told by administration officials that Wilson's wife was CIA. Without that little tidbit no amount of information in Who's Who was going to help him.
Even considering the above, the identity of Valerie Plame and her job was not a well kept secret, and evidence points to several people knowing it. Novak connected the dots, some of which came from Wilson's own "Whos Who" and from the CIA itself.
Quote:The Bush administration has shown itself to be untruthful on several points. We can call this one equal.
Joseph Wilson has shown himself to be untruthful on several points, most importantly how he got the job to go to Niger, the results of his findings, and whether he was non-partisan.
Quote:The Bush administration is suspect if you examine what has been published about them and what they have done.
The personalities, behavior, and motives of the Wilsons are suspect if you analyze what has been published about them and what they have done, one example being the Vanity Fair article.
Quote:The Bush administrations treatment of the leakers is not consistent with their stated position.
The Wilson's charges as brought forth in their civil suit toward Armitage as compared to others are not consistent with their stated postion.
Quote:Bush and Cheney have both avoided testifying under oath on this issue. They have avoided testifying under oath in a criminal investigation. Rather suspect, wouldn't you say?
Wilson is avoiding testifying under oath, and his lawyer is charging "harassment," which is utterly ridiculous for someone supposedly interested in the truth.
Quote:You have missed lots of points and stuck with the ones that support your theory.
Cicerone, I may have missed some points, but having followed this from the very beginning, I think I've connected the dots to form an opinion that is backed by evidence.
Quote:Rove was caught in the dragnet. There is no doubt that Rove was one of Novak's sources.The theories of the Bush and Rove haters have not panned out on this, mainly that Rove would be caught in the dragnet.
Quote:They do? I guess perhaps if you make up some facts, ignore others and hide even more under your bed.The facts and results of this whole affair support the theory that the Wilsons were involved in a vendetta against the administration and that nobody in the administration committed any crime whatsoever.
Quote:The Bush administration looked for motives? So they were outing Plame then for a politcal purpose? Either the Bush administration was involved in outing Plame or they weren't. You can't say they were not involved and then claim they looked for motives. That is a really BIG DOT if they were looking for motives and a way to attack Wilson.And given the fact that Wilson's findings in Niger do not square with his public opinions, then I think it is quite reasonable for the Bush administration to look for motives of the players involved and explanations as to why, how, and who sent him to Niger.
Quote:Yes, your arguments do defy common sense. You connect the dots you want to see and refuse to see other dots.The irony of the whole thing is that it has been found out the prime leaker was one of their own, Armitage, which ruined their whole game plan, not Rove.
Every once in a while, a case comes along that defies common sense as to why it continues as it does, and this is one of them.
Okie, You are coming to conclusions without knowing the "whole" story or the information that is privy only to Fitzgerald and the grand jury.
Assumptions about "how we feel" have no basis in fact until all the facts are revealed.
We'll learn more (but maybe no all) when Fitz completes his investigation.
Roxy, you still haven't answered the question I posed to you when you wondered how in the world Gore's jetting around the world would possibly use any energy. Dah?
You interpret my open and fully explained opinions as digging a hole. So be it. At least I offer reasoning. Maybe you should try it sometime.
okie wrote:Roxy, you still haven't answered the question I posed to you when you wondered how in the world Gore's jetting around the world would possibly use any energy. Dah?
You interpret my open and fully explained opinions as digging a hole. So be it. At least I offer reasoning. Maybe you should try it sometime.
To the contrary, I addressed those bogus claims fully. You also are ignoring my rules.
okie, You must've missed parados' outline to refute almost everything you and your padres argued for. Go back and read the "dots."
1. Motive: Only the Bush cabal had any
2. Outing any CIA agent is not right whether it's legal or not.
3. Who's Who did not out Valerie as a CIA agent. She was only identified as Wilson's wife.
4. Who had anything to gain from outing Valerie Plame?
5. Take off your blinders.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You must've missed parados' outline to refute almost everything you and your padres argued for. Go back and read the "dots."
1. Motive: Only the Bush cabal had any
2. Outing any CIA agent is not right whether it's legal or not.
3. Who's Who did not out Valerie as a CIA agent. She was only identified as Wilson's wife.
4. Who had anything to gain from outing Valerie Plame?
5. Take off your blinders.
No, I didn't miss it. To point out the flaws in your points:
1. Wrong. And cabal is an inappropriate terms, obviously, which tips off the fact that you have blinders on, cicerone.
2. Only sort of correct because not all agents or employees are secret, but regardless, inadvertant outing is not a crime, plus the main outer is not being prosecuted, so figure it out, cicerone.
3. Did I ever say Whos Who outed Plame? I only rightly point out that any information given helps someone identify her, and so Wilson himself was instrumental in aiding anyone checking her out by providing another dot for them to connect the dots.
4. We should also ask "what" had anything to gain from outing Plame? The truth about a very important issue, a story, is to be gained, which reporters are presumeably and hopefully interested in, such as Novak. So reporters attempting to report a story accurately have alot to gain, and the public has very much to gain as a result.
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.
5. You do the same, cicerone.
The Bush administration was not without motives. To say only one side has motives shows you have as big of blinders on as you accuse others of having.
The CIA couldn't start a probe of the release of classified information UNLESS classified information was released. Your argument hinges on the CIA lied to the AGs office. An argument that I find hard to believe.
Marriage records are public. Novak could have gone to the local courthouse and got marriage records. He could have gone and got property records. He could have gone a lot of places. None of which points to Wilson "aiding" anyone in find out his wife works at the CIA.
Novak isn't a reporter. He is a columnist. Reporting that Plame works at the CIA as an agent helped tell the story how? Other than to try to smear Wilson? This is what Novak wrote..
Quote: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.
You will note that 2 officials said that Wilson's wife suggested sending him. First of all the 'fact' isn't even a fact. It was disputed by the Congressional investigation.
okie, It's really funny how you find Wilson as the culprit with "an axe to grind," when Cheney was the one that made the request to the CIA to investigate the yellow cake from Niger. Wilson reported there was no evidence of such a purchase by Saddam, and THAT is what upset this administration. The truth. It upset their whole plan for war, but Bush went ahead anyway.
