House Will Hold Plame Hearings

[Unabogie]

LINK

I presume that Fitzgerald's materials will be subpoenaed, which would include Bush and Cheney's interviews with the FBI. Valerie Wilson will also testify.

Some questions I'd like to see asked and answered.

1. What was Valerie's exact status? We know Fitzgerald stated she was "covered under IIPA" and that her status "was classified". But it'd be nice to put this baby to bed.

2. What was the the result of the CIA's damage assessment? That would be useful in putting the pardon issue in context, if no damage was done or if much damage was done.

3. Libby said he discussed leaking Plame's name to Judy Miller with Dick Cheney on June 12th, and her notes show that he did so. Did Cheney order him to do it? What was Cheney's version of that meeting?

Any other questions you'd like to see answered under oath? You will have your chance soon.

 

[Upchurch]

Any other questions you'd like to see answered under oath?

To Cheney: Why do you hate America?

 

[Darth Rotor]

To Chaney: Why do you hate America?

Why do you hate spelling?

My question is: will Mr Armitage be called before Congress, and if so, will he be held accountable, and charged, with an admitted violation of the law? Absent his carelessness, this particular detail would not have been the root cause of the immense waste in man hours this leak represented. I am not convinced that another path would not have been taken to discredit Mr Wilson.

(PS: I did not alter your post, unlike in a certain other thread where it might have happened . . . )

DR

 

[Upchurch]

Why do you hate spelling?

Because spelling hates me.

(PS: I did not alter your post, unlike in a certain other thread where it might have happened . . . )

No, I can alter my own post well enough.

 

[Unabogie]

Why do you hate spelling?

My question is: will Mr Armitage be called before Congress, and if so, will he be held accountable, and charged, with an admitted violation of the law? Absent his carelessness, this particular detail would not have been the root cause of the immense waste in man hours this leak represented. I am not convinced that another path would not have been taken to discredit Mr Wilson.

(PS: I did not alter your post, unlike in a certain other thread where it might have happened . . . )

DR

DR, the evidence does not support your conclusion. Yes, Armitage leaked to Woodward and Novak. But at the same time, Rove leaked to Cooper and Novak, Fleischer leaked to Gregory and Pincus, and Libby leaked to Miller, Novak, and Cooper.

Seems to me that they were trying very hard to get someone to bite on this morsel, and it just so happened that Novak was the first to bite. Libby, however, leaked to Miller on June 12th. Had she written an article on it, then Libby would be in the same boat as Armitage.

My opinion is that they all conspired to leak the info, and Libby was the fish to get caught. Ari got an immunity deal. Armitage came clean but pleaded ignorance. Rove got Viveca Novak to enable him to "re-remember". But they were all just as guilty.

 

[SezMe]

2. What was the the result of the CIA's damage assessment? That would be useful in putting the pardon issue in context, if no damage was done or if much damage was done.

I'd really like to see that one answered as well but I fear that making that information public would do even more damage. I wonder if such information could be sanitized enough to go public yet not reveal useful information to our enemies.

I wonder if the witnesses will be sworn in?

 

[Unabogie]

I'd really like to see that one answered as well but I fear that making that information public would do even more damage. I wonder if such information could be sanitized enough to go public yet not reveal useful information to our enemies.

I wonder if the witnesses will be sworn in?

I hope so. I'd like to see all of these people sworn in. I'd also like Fitzgerald to release his files to the House, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Thanz]

Questions I would like answered:

1) Why House? I mean, he's great at a medical mystery, but for something like this I think you need Matlock.

2) I know that they are hearings, but is anyone listening? I mean, they are hearing, but are they really listening?

3) Now that O.J. Simpson has thrown his hat into the "I may be Anna Nicole's baby's father" ring, is there any hope for Western civilization?

 

[Darth Rotor]

DR, the evidence does not support your conclusion. Yes, Armitage leaked to Woodward and Novak. But at the same time, Rove leaked to Cooper and Novak, Fleischer leaked to Gregory and Pincus, and Libby leaked to Miller, Novak, and Cooper.

Seems to me that they were trying very hard to get someone to bite on this morsel, and it just so happened that Novak was the first to bite. Libby, however, leaked to Miller on June 12th. Had she written an article on it, then Libby would be in the same boat as Armitage.

My opinion is that they all conspired to leak the info, and Libby was the fish to get caught. Ari got an immunity deal. Armitage came clean but pleaded ignorance. Rove got Viveca Novak to enable him to "re-remember". But they were all just as guilty.

Including Armitage? I was under the impression that he was, like Powell, in the internal opposition to the neo con club in Cheney's court. Powell's struggles with Rummy were badly concealed.

I do see your point, that Armitage may have been in on it, or not, and that he does not appear to be the only source of the leak.

DR

 

[Luke T.]

1. What was Valerie's exact status? We know Fitzgerald stated she was "covered under IIPA" and that her status "was classified". But it'd be nice to put this baby to bed.

So would I.

Here is the Bob Novak article that started it all:
Mission to Niger.

Now, in your OP link there is another link to Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity, and in that link, they say:

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Chicago-Sun-Times, the Washington Post, and many other major newspapers publicly identifying Valerie Plame -- the wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson -- as a covert CIA agent.

Whether or not she was covert is the crux of the biscuit.

But Novak didn't say she was covert. If you click the link I just provided to his article, you can see that he says:

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 that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.

Anyway, it is probably a good idea for everyone who has an opinion on the matter to read the article that started the whole mess.

 

[Luke T.]

Two senior administration officials told me

That's the first guy you want at the hearing. Novak. "Who were the two senior administration officials?"

But before that, it needs to be settled whether any law was being broken to begin with by telling him she worked for the CIA.

 

[SezMe]

But before that, it needs to be settled whether any law was being broken to begin with by telling him she worked for the CIA.

I agree, but only if this is interpreted in the widest possible fashion. IOW, whether Plame was officially, and in the eyes of the law, covert is certainly one question that should be answered. But there might have been severe damage done to certain CIA operations around the world. And, I might add, operations that included nuclear proliferation and Iran, issues that are now vitally important. IANAL, but I would think that if such damage has been done, then laws certainly must have been broken, independent of Plame's covert status.

That is why I think Unabogie's second point in the OP is so important.

 

[Luke T.]

I agree, but only if this is interpreted in the widest possible fashion. IOW, whether Plame was officially, and in the eyes of the law, covert is certainly one question that should be answered.

Yep.

But there might have been severe damage done to certain CIA operations around the world. And, I might add, operations that included nuclear proliferation and Iran, issues that are now vitally important.

Any organization she used as a cover in the past was placed in danger as a result of her "real job" being revealed. Even if she was not covert at the time of the revelation.

IANAL, but I would think that if such damage has been done, then laws certainly must have been broken, independent of Plame's covert status.

Don't make that assumption. I don't think there are any laws that cover "collateral damage" from revealing an agent's name.

There was a lot of debate about the Constitutionality of the IIPA in 1982 when it was being written. The law was orginally supposed to apply only to members of government. It was asked if members of the press would be subject to the law. It is that vague. At the time, the answer was, "Yes."

Anyhoo. There does not appear to be any laws covering the damage that results to organizations and other people that occurs as a result of revealing an agent's, active or inactive, name. If there is, I have been unable to find it.

The actual IIPA, for anyone interested.

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

ETA: The thing is, not even VP Cheney or Scooter Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) should have known about Plame. Whoever did, and passed that on, is the one that needs to be found.

 

[pgwenthold]

I agree, but only if this is interpreted in the widest possible fashion. IOW, whether Plame was officially, and in the eyes of the law, covert is certainly one question that should be answered. But there might have been severe damage done to certain CIA operations around the world. And, I might add, operations that included nuclear proliferation and Iran, issues that are now vitally important. IANAL, but I would think that if such damage has been done, then laws certainly must have been broken, independent of Plame's covert status.

I seem to recall that in GWBush's first presidential campaign, he made a statement something like "My staff will not only be concerned with what's legal, but with what is right."

Now they are splitting hairs to determine whether the outing of a CIA agent was technically illegal?

Illegal or not, wouldn't the public advertisement that a person was working for the CIA with the goal of trying to discredit her husband's report that contradicted your position be a highly questionable act?

(actually, I was trying to find the actual quote online, but couldn't find it directly (did find references to it); I did find an interesting campaign speech from 2000 when Bush accused Al Gore of being big government, with the goal of expanding the government to unprecedented levels. Oddly, he didn't mention that he was going to do it, too)

 

[Unabogie]

That's the first guy you want at the hearing. Novak. "Who were the two senior administration officials?"

He already answered that at the trial. The first was Armitage, then he called Rove and Rove confirmed it. After Novak wrote his article, he also had a conversation with Libby.

In what I consider quite damning testimony, Novak said before the article hit the papers, he gave an advance copy to his friend Hohlt, who immediately faxed a copy to Karl Rove. On that same day, after he got this fax, when Matt Cooper called, Rove got on the phone and told Cooper about Plame, saying "all this will be out there soon" and "I've already said too much". Rove didn't mention Cooper to the grand jury at first, and that's where his "re-remembering" came in.

Seems hard for me to buy that they all just mentioned this in passing, when they were so gaga about this tidbit.

 

[Unabogie]

ETA: The thing is, not even VP Cheney or Scooter Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) should have known about Plame. Whoever did, and passed that on, is the one that needs to be found.

That's also now known. Robert Grenier was the guy at CIA who was called by Libby. He asked around and relayed back that Plame was in CPD. Libby said that by the time he relayed this to Cheney, Cheney already knew, so there's some info we still don't know.

 

[SezMe]

Luke, you're looking at the IIPA as the only source of controling law here. Bush has repeatedly said that we're a nation at war. I'll bet there are statutes on the books against aiding an enemy during a time of war that have nothing to do with Plame's status under the IIPA. That is what I mean by the "broadest" interpretation of the law.

 

[Luke T.]

I seem to recall that in GWBush's first presidential campaign, he made a statement something like "My staff will not only be concerned with what's legal, but with what is right."

Now they are splitting hairs to determine whether the outing of a CIA agent was technically illegal?

Sleazy, isn't it?

The real issue at the bottom of all this is whether or not Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq.

The timeline is that Wilson went to Niger to find out if they were selling the necessary uranium for WMDs to Iraq because a source said they were. Wilson reported back that they were not. How far up the chain that report went is extremely important, because a year later Bush was repeating the source's claim. If Bush was aware of Wilson's report, then Bush was lying. If Bush was not aware of Wilson's report, he was not lying.

Some people want to believe Bush was lying. "Bush lied, people died", "at least when Clinton lied, no one died", and so on.

And that is how it became so politicized. So the White House struck back. They put the word out that the reason Wilson went to Niger was because his wife put him up to it. And his wife works for the CIA. And the CIA hates us. Not only that, Wilson's wife gave a campaign contribution to the opposition. Et cetera, et cetera.

And somewhere in there, they lost sight of a much, much higher principle.

Shame on them all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sleazy, isn't it?

The real issue at the bottom of all this is whether or not Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq.

The timeline is that Wilson went to Niger to find out if they were selling the necessary uranium for WMDs to Iraq because a source said they were. Wilson reported back that they were not. How far up the chain that report went is extremely important, because a year later Bush was repeating the source's claim. If Bush was aware of Wilson's report, then Bush was lying. If Bush was not aware of Wilson's report, he was not lying.

Some people want to believe Bush was lying. "Bush lied, people died", "at least when Clinton lied, no one died", and so on.

And that is how it became so politicized. So the White House struck back. They put the word out that the reason Wilson went to Niger was because his wife put him up to it. And his wife works for the CIA. And the CIA hates us. Not only that, Wilson's wife gave a campaign contribution to the opposition. Et cetera, et cetera.

And somewhere in there, they lost sight of a much, much higher principle.

Shame on them all.

Wilson's report, of whatever quality, is one of many, many data points the CIA analysts had to consider in their process of putting together an assessment.

This cherry picking of his report is a curious obsession, by both the media and the VP's office. What got this mess underway was an after the fact (the fact being war in Iraq) surfacing of this report and his recollections -- one observation from among a mountain of them -- regarding the Iraq WMD programs as related to a small portion of the programs.

If this single report were decisive, the CIA estimate would have reflected its decisive nature. Yellow cake was not the sole motivation for war, nor the sole ingredient of Saddam's WMD programs, such as they were. The search for a smoking gun seems to have become a blinding obsession. Hmmmm, the parallel with searching for "Saddam's smoking WMD gun" is striking.

What was Mr Wilson's motivation before he discussed the matter with the Chicago Sun Times? It is fairly apparent what the VP's team had as a motivation. Where was he when Congress was deliberating in the fall of 2002?

DR

 

[Unabogie]

What was Mr Wilson's motivation before he discussed the matter with the Chicago Sun Times? It is fairly apparent what the VP's team had as a motivation. Where was he when Congress was deliberating in the fall of 2002?

DR

He claims it was the SOTU speech in 2003. He had attempted to communicate with the White House on this point, and felt rebuffed. He then started talking to reporters as an anonymous diplomat, then finally wrote his OP-ED.

The trial shows that Cheney's interest in Wilson predated the OP-ED, and was based on Wilson's sourcing of WMD stories, specifically, the William Kristof article.