Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Valerie Plame's Identity?
Heck No, she was no more guarded then you for her Identity.

Valerie Plame's Employer?
That was a very classified piece of information.

Name one piece of open-source literature that documents her
employment prior to the White House outing her?

Posted by anonymous at March 16, 2007 06:58 AM

"most closely gaurded secrets"

Reminds me of job priorities: if everything is super-hyper critical important then ... nothing is.

Posted by brian at March 16, 2007 07:05 AM

The White House didn't "out her," Anonymous Moron. Richard Armitage told Bob Novak that she worked for the CIA. You continue to live up to your name.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 07:08 AM

Waxman is a boob but two points are obvious...

The administration handed him a club to beat them with...

and two it is a low day whenthe far right is reduced to making excuses for compromising national security.

If Clinton had done this..the right would have had to have tranquilizers.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 07:10 AM

Who is "making excuses for compromising national security," Robert?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 07:22 AM

> If Clinton had done this..the right would have had to have tranquilizers.

And the left would have defended it.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 16, 2007 07:22 AM

Richard Armitage told Bob Novak that she worked for the CIA.

Actually, many Bush Administration officials told many journalists that she worked for the CIA. Novak just happened to be the only one who published it.

Posted by at March 16, 2007 07:58 AM

Actually, many Bush Administration officials told many journalists that she worked for the CIA. Novak just happened to be the only one who published it.

My understanding is that the original source was Armitage, and that no one else disclosed such a thing to a journalist. In many cases, journalists were informing administration officials, who said, "yeah, I heard that, too." I still haven't seem or heard any evidence of anyone other than Armitage volunteering the information unprompted, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 08:04 AM

My understanding is that the original source was Armitage, and that no one else disclosed such a thing to a journalist.

And this is why we need hearings. With witnesses who are placed under oath. Perhaps your understanding is correct and perhaps not.

Put Karl Rove under oath and ask him. If he tells the truth and confirms your understanding, well, good.

If he lies, or if your understanding is incorrect then we proceed accordingly.

Posted by Bill White at March 16, 2007 08:08 AM

The intar-tubes say Valerie Plame just now testified (under oath?) that she was in fact covert.

If that is wrong, then it seems to me that the AG needs to file perjury charges against her. If Gonzales does not file perjury charges against Plame then it becomes far more difficult for pundits to argue she wasn't covert.

Then we can have a full trial on whether she was covert, or not. Rather than rely upon Robert Novak.

Posted by Bill White at March 16, 2007 08:12 AM

If that is wrong, then it seems to me that the AG needs to file perjury charges against her.

Yes, Bill, we've noticed that all manner of wacky things "seem to you."

If Gonzales does not file perjury charges against Plame then it becomes far more difficult for pundits to argue she wasn't covert.

Nonsense. Just because she says she was covert doesn't make her covert, and no one would indict someone for perjury who is simply clueless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 08:18 AM

My understanding is that the original source was Armitage, and that no one else disclosed such a thing to a journalist.

If that really is your understanding, then you haven't been paying any attention at all. Scooter Libby told Judith Miller, for example.

In many cases, journalists were informing administration officials, who said, "yeah, I heard that, too."

Yes, it was Libby's excuse that a journalist had a previously told him what he leaked to Miller. That is why he was convicted of perjury. The excuse was simply not true.

The "yeah, I heard that too" excuse was also Rove' excuse for revealing additional classified details to Novak, but Rove can't remember the name of the previous journalist who educated him. Another case of Washington amnesia.

Posted by at March 16, 2007 08:22 AM

Read Plame's opening statement to the committee. Simply put, she is "calling out" the Administration. If the Administration does not respond, except by sniping from journalists, Plame's credibility will be enhanced in the public eye.

Also, as I posted above, Congress also needs to call Administration officials, place them under oath, and inquire concerning Plame's status.

Ask the right questions of people who are under oath and the truth will be revealed.

Posted by Bill White at March 16, 2007 08:29 AM

Pshaw, Bill, don't you know that there's a war on? The Administration is too busy to bicker and argue over who lied to whom.

Posted by at March 16, 2007 08:37 AM

Is Plame dead right now because her "covert identity" was leaked? Last I checked, dead people can't testify or have videos taken of them walking around.

I'll admit to a bit of ignorance about the details of this entire debacle, but I'm still trying to figure out what major terrorist event took place, who died, or what else came about because she outed herself?

Posted by John Breen III at March 16, 2007 08:53 AM

From the Washington Post:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson.

That was from Septmeber 2006, but I guess Waxman doesn't read the local newspaper.

Read Plame's opening statement to the committee. Simply put, she is "calling out" the Administration.

No. She just needs the free advertisement for her legal fund. Apparently, the Wilson's can't find a lawyer willing to work on contingency fees. That's probably because at least one person in the White House has ultimate authority on who and what really is "covert" and "classfied", and it is not some CIA bureaucrat giving her husband free trips with taxpayer dollars.

Posted by Leland at March 16, 2007 09:03 AM

The world abounds with people -- who may or may not have ever been involved with the CIA -- who have told wild tales of being super-double-secret agents. You can find them on the internet easily enough; one of them even has the same last name as me.

A now-deceased relative of mine used to claim to have been involved in deep-cover intel work during WW2. He never thought to mention that he was only a teenager during those years.

Posted by McGehee at March 16, 2007 09:32 AM

mmm, Vaaaalerie. I'd love to go under cover[s] with her!

Posted by Andy at March 16, 2007 10:25 AM

Posted by Bill White at March 16, 2007 08:12 AM..

What is so amazing to me is how well stupid or uninformed or whatever most people are about when perjury charges are filled in the federal system.

People like you hear the word and then all of a sudden "EVERYTHING" is prosecutable perjury.

LOL

One more time...it is so fun.

The people in their various judicial groups rarely ever file perjury charges on misstatements made outside the perview of a trial or judicial setting where "The PEOPLE" are not the injured party.

None of you seem to grasp the concept of "the victim" in a criminal proceeding (which is always about the state) or the victim in a civil proceding where "The people" are a party as oppossed to a civil proceding where "the people" are not.

There are reasons that in the zillions of divorce cases that perjury charges are never filed, and almost everyone is "lying" to some extent.

Hint..Plume could say anything she wanted to, as could Ollie NOrth when he testified before Congress...everyone is under oath, but it is not an oath sworn to with agents of The People.

Civics is hard.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 10:42 AM

sorry Plume is Plame...

The times regrets teh error.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 10:43 AM

Civics is hard.

Well, for you, at least. We'd appreciate it if you wouldn't flaunt your own ignorance here, Robert. In fact, lying to Congress is exactly what Ollie North was charged with (nine counts, IIRC). It may not be literally be "perjury," but lying to Congress under oath is a federal felony.

But when Plame states she's "covert" she is stating an opinion (and apparently an uninformed one), not "lying."

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 10:59 AM

Rand, she did, however, state she did not in anyway, shape, or form recommend her husband for the Niger trip, which directly contradicts sworn testimony from reliable sources in the 2004 hearings.

So she may still be facing "lying to Congress" charges soon.

Posted by John Irving at March 16, 2007 11:06 AM

But when Plame states she's "covert" she is stating an opinion (and apparently an uninformed one), not "lying."

Agreed. I fully respect that she might consider herself covert and thought she was covert (though I'm not sure she worked very hard in the past 3 years to protect her identity, but that's another issue). She's a bureaucrat that abused her power, but I have little doubt that she thought she could get away with it because of her covert status.

Posted by Leland at March 16, 2007 11:08 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 10:59 AM

North was charged with lying UNDER OATH about ACTIONS which he had taken on behalf of the state...Much like Scooter...

He was not charged for his testimony about the actions in open hearings...indeed it was that testimony that caused the appeals court to toss his conviction and the Prosecuting attorney not to refile.

Civics is hard.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 11:17 AM

Rand, she did, however, state she did not in anyway, shape, or form recommend her husband for the Niger trip, which directly contradicts sworn testimony from reliable sources in the 2004 hearings.

Yup. It will be interesting to see if the committee recalls those witnesses, and whether they're called by the Dems or Republicans.

And yes, Robert, we know you will continue to parse words and facts to mean whatever you want them to mean, and then arrogantly and foolishly lecture us on our supposed ignorance of "civics."

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 11:26 AM

"Parsing" words is all what the law is all about. The law is words and those words are as certian as the laws of physics or engineering in terms of the behavior that they define as being "oppossed to the morals of the soverign".

The law is not about politics nor is it about political opinion...it is not about feelings. The only victim is the soverign and only the soverign should through its actors (a jury) decide what is lawful and what is not.

Bill Clinton was fined appropriatly for his misstatements in a civil case wehre the soverign were not a party. I think he was disbarred as well. Thats appropriate punishment from the Court to an officer of the Court.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 11:45 AM

Waxman's quote:

... This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.
I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines ...

... I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests ...

... During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Okay then. If Waxman is wrong in this statement, perhaps CIA Chief General Michael Hayden will correct him.

If General Hayden does not correct Waxman, then it would seem Waxman's statement is accurate. Any disagreement?

Posted by Bill White at March 16, 2007 12:40 PM

Ah, so that is the already-famous "Hayden quote."

Sounds like Waxman quoted at the beginning, and then ad libbed. Why isn't Hayden testifying then?

Posted by John Irving at March 16, 2007 12:49 PM

Sounds like Waxman quoted at the beginning, and then ad libbed. Why isn't Hayden testifying then?

If the Administration chooses, they can call General Hayden to a press conference and ask him to explain why and how Waxman is wrong.

If they don't, then the inferences are fairly obvious.

Posted by at March 16, 2007 12:56 PM

If they don't, then the inferences are fairly obvious.

So far, the administration has seemed pretty willing to let Congressional Democrats hang themselves without any help, and likely as not the White House has more important work for General Hayden than telling the truth about a liar.

Posted by John Irving at March 16, 2007 01:04 PM

"So she may still be facing "lying to Congress" charges soon."

Not with the democrats in charge she won't. They don't want the whole truth, they just want their version of the truth so as to expand their power.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 16, 2007 01:42 PM

I just googled the statute and it says:

(4) The term "covert agent" means—
(A) 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—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information,
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

Ms. Plame appears to qualify on both counts. I don't see any other way to construe the definition. The head of the CIA confirms that her status was classified.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at March 16, 2007 02:04 PM

Not with the democrats in charge she won't. They don't want the whole truth, they just want their version of the truth so as to expand their power.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 16, 2007 01:42 PM

AH Cecil more civics lessons.

The Congress cannot prosecute anyone for "lying" to Congress. Read the Constitution it is a short read.

Congress can recommend charges, but they cant do it...hence the Dems have no say so here.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 02:04 PM

While Ms. Plame's identity may have been classified, she was certainly not serving abroad at the time of the incident. As I understand she had not been aborad for more than 5 years either, thus she did not qualify as a "covert agent" according to the law. If someone can point to informationt hat demonstrates that she was serving abroad within five years I'd love to see it. (Ms. Plame's statements and Mr. Waxman's do not qualify. I'm talking about data.)

I think the fact that the special prosecutor did not charge anyone with a violation of this law speaks volumes about whether she was really covert in the context of the law. Especially when we have an open public admission by the person who first revealed her name/identity to Novak.

This is and always has been a political exercise.

Posted by KeithK at March 16, 2007 02:32 PM

KeithK -

Section 4A and 4B of the relevant statute are in the alternative. Victoria Toensig made a disingenuous argument today.

Under 4B, Plame was not covert. No argument.

Under 4A, she only needed to have been overseas within five years prior to the relevant time frame.

An agent is "covert" if he/she qualifies under 4A OR under 4B.

Before the hearing began Henry Waxman met with CIA Director General Hayden and cleared certain statements of fact. Plame being "covert" on the day Novak published his article was one of those statements Waxman cleared with Hayden.

Posted by at March 16, 2007 02:56 PM

Too bad that Hayden was not under oath.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 16, 2007 07:04 PM

I find all this he said/she said hilarious. If Fitzgerald said no more charges are going to be filed, why are you still debating this? I think the BDS sufferers can't let it go because there was no "Fitzmas" and the defenders are irritated Plame gets to have her say without apparent consequence. Either way, this is a perfect example of political discourse run amok.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 16, 2007 07:23 PM

Simberg utterly forgets Karl rove discussing Plame's employment
with Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, and
He forgets about Libby telling it to Judy miller
and he forgets about Ari Fleischer spilling it to
Tim Russert.

Nope, that was the White House engaging in a
full court smear, just like they were smearing
Richard Clarke 2 years before.

Posted by anonymous at March 16, 2007 07:34 PM

Posted by Bill Maron at March 16, 2007 07:23 PM

well said...my favorite view is that everything that can be said has been said, just not by everyone.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at March 16, 2007 08:17 PM

I thought Armitage had heard about Plame because of a memo sent out by the White House. I think it even originated in Cheney's office.

The conservative position on all this makes no sense. If Wilson was wrong in his assessment of Niger dealings, it should have been a simple process of laying out the evidence to the contrary. This story would have gone away fairly quickly.

Why did his wife's role in this matter at all? Wilson had ambassadorial experience in the country. Had worked in the region. He was a logical person to send. The fact that his wife was involved made no difference in the underlying case of who was right here. Does anyone really believe taking a trip to Niger is a "junket"? Who goes to Niger for that reason?

It's another example of how inept this administration is. If Wilson's conclusions were wrong, set the record straight. Make your case. Instead everything is about loyalty and conformity, not competence. Anyone who dissents must be banished or destroyed. And it gets this gang into trouble every time. Much of what went wrong in Iraq can be traced to it. The CPA was staffed based on ideology and loyalty. Look how that turned out.

Posted by Deep Voice at March 17, 2007 09:43 AM

Notice how simberg gets very quiet about libby's discussion of
plame with judy miller?

his two favorite neocon's at one table discussing a covert cia agent

Posted by anonymous at March 17, 2007 09:55 AM

The conservative position on all this makes no sense.

I don't know what the "conservative position on all this" is. This isn't about liberal versus conservative. It's about partisan advantage.

Why did his wife's role in this matter at all? Wilson had ambassadorial experience in the country. Had worked in the region. He was a logical person to send.

There were many people who it would have made just as much sense to send. The reason it matters is that he implied (among other lies) in his "editorial" that Cheney's office had sent him, and this caused a number of people to wonder how it was that Cheney's office could have done something so dumb as to send a partisan Democrat on such a mission. The answer was that he didn't, and in was almost certainly the fact that his wife, who worked for the CIA, was responsible. Saying this wasn't an "outing" or "punishment of dissenters," (since no one seems to have been aware that the CIA imagined that it was attempting to keep her identity a secret, and neither was she, since she drove in and out of CIA headquarters every day to and from work). It was simply an explanation of how he got sent by a rogue agency.

I agree, though, that it could have been handled better (as is the case with many things in this and past administrations, and government in general). On the other hand, I think that it's a bizarre fantasy to think that if they had engaged in a "simple process of laying out the evidence to the contrary" things would have turned out any differently. There is simply too much Bush -(and-Cheney)-hating derangement afield in the country for that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2007 09:59 AM

Simberg cites a claim that Valerie Plame listed her address
as the US Embassy in 1991, Ipso Facto, she must be a
CIA Agent.

Um, Simberg, her husband was a US Ambassador and
foreign service officer his whole life. It's not unusual
for foreign service officers to take their families abroad
and then use the US Embassy as their address.

Do you bother checking what her husband was
doing that year?

Stop being a GOP Stooge and use the brain you
once had

Posted by anonymous at March 17, 2007 10:03 AM

I agree, though, that it could have been handled better

So you're saying that mistakes were made?

There is simply too much Bush -(and-Cheney)-hating derangement afield

I agree, BDS is a terror that's gripping the nation.

Posted by at March 17, 2007 11:16 AM

From Mr. WIlson's op-ed,

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

The VP's office asked the CIA. The CIA asked Mr. Wilson. I don't see that this implies in any way that the VP's office sent Wilson; I'm sure they would have preferred someone else go.

Secondly, it seems clear to me that Mrs. Wilson did not send her husband to Niger. When the issue came up she wrote a memo pointing out that her husband knew people in the region and had good relationships there, which might be useful. She introduced her husband to her colleagues and then left the meeting where the decision to send him was made.

Thirdly, I can't see what difference it would make anyway. Niger is not exactly a resort destination. I wouldn't want my spouse, if I had one, to send me there - and we'd have sharp words about it if he did at home.

Finally, none of this addresses the major point, which is that based on his observations and visit to Niger, Mr. Wilson was unable to confirm that there was any attempt by Iraq to acquire uranium from Niger.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at March 17, 2007 11:58 AM

Jane,
One problem with your points is that there is no report he wrote that we can see of what Wilson did or did not find in Niger. We only have his op-ed to go by and that is demonstrably full of holes; i.e. his wife did recommend him for the mission, his findings intimated it was more likely an attempt was made not less likely(per the Senate select committee report NOT my opinion).

Posted by Bill Maron at March 17, 2007 12:20 PM

I'm sure they would have preferred someone else go.

No doubt. Everyone else was sure of that as well, which is why everyone asked why this clown would have been sent (had such a request been made by Cheney's office--I'm not even sure that it was). It's very clear that his wife at least suggested him for the mission (oh, yeah, it was just some guy who happened to be walking by--where and who is he? She didn't say).

And in fact Wilson did find evidence that Saddam was attempting to purchase uranium, as the Senate Intelligence Committee report indicates (Wilson was smart enough not to lie to them--but the op-ed wasn't under oath...).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2007 01:16 PM

Simberg really tries to tell a lie doesn't he here.

Simberg Wilson's trip to Niger revealed that in
2002, the Iraqi's had no contact for nuclear materials
within 10 years.

Keep up the lies, you neocon POS

Posted by anonymous at March 17, 2007 02:22 PM

Simberg Wilson's trip to Niger revealed that in
2002, the Iraqi's had no contact for nuclear materials within 10 years.

Anonymous Moron, I wish you wouldn't share your pathetic fantasy life with the people on my blog.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2007 02:27 PM

"Keep up the lies, you neocon POS"

We all know you are the one lying here you subhuman piece of anti-semetic filth.

"Simberg cites a claim that Valerie Plame listed her address
as the US Embassy in 1991, Ipso Facto, she must be a
CIA Agent.

Do you bother checking what her husband was
doing that year? "

Uhhhh....Joe Wilson did not marry Valarie Plame until 1998. Gee, it must such to have ones head so firmly inserted in ones very own rectal orifice. 1991....1998.....Seems Rand has nothing to apologize for, he is factually and demonstrably correct.

You are a first class glass licking de de dee.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 17, 2007 02:50 PM

So Simberg, are you going to out any CIA Agents today?

Posted by anonymous at March 17, 2007 03:19 PM

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."

Hey Puckett,

Lie, Lie, Lie, You and Simberg can share a cell at Nuremberg

Posted by anonymous at March 17, 2007 04:06 PM

You mean we can sit on the Jury that sentences you to death for criminal lameness against Humanity?

If we are in Nuremberg, that will be the only reason. Your are already in a cell, at least your head is.

BTW, I caught you in a big lie.

Anonyomus Jew Hater lied, all he does is lie.

PS, you are so going to smoke a turd in hell for lying.

PPS, you still haven't explained that seven year discrepency between 1991 and 1998.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 17, 2007 05:21 PM

Puckett

in 1991 Plame was on official cover.
as an embassy official.

I know reading wasn't your strong suit
but try to not let the drool short out the keyboard.

Posted by anonymous at March 17, 2007 10:31 PM

She was not Wilson's wife in 1991 as you have contended. I guess reading comprehension of your own written material is not your strong suit.

"Um, Simberg, her husband was a US Ambassador and
foreign service officer his whole life. It's not unusual
for foreign service officers to take their families abroad
and then use the US Embassy as their address."

It's damn unusual for them to do that seven years before the said family exists. Get off the short bus and quit eating your own boogers and you might start to figure that out.

When everyone else on this board thinks you are an retard idiot, we call that a 'clue'.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 18, 2007 07:22 AM

Go Mike, go!! You know, I have noticed different writing styles from analmous on occasion. I wonder if there aren't 2 of them. Rand said he sees various IP addresses. If those comments are the best these 2 reprobates(if true) can come up with, that would make them twice as stupid as everyone thinks they are.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 18, 2007 10:51 AM

Post a comment