It depends on what the meaning of "name" is...

[Undertoad]

Wilson went to that country, investigated the structure of the uranium industry (which is mainly in French hands anyway), and concluded it was impossible.

He had 6 days to do that.

[warch]

And along with previous investigative reports filed by the US ambassador living in Niger, and second report reaching the same conclusion by military personel, Wilson's investigation came to same conclusion. All reports were filed. And the documents that raised questions have been found to be fake.

Rove's only hope is to trash Wilson. But even then, there was a leak.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm nervous even writing this...glatt can relate, I'm sure. But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.

I think you are confusing 'covert' and 'deep cover'. My knowledge is also limited, but anyone who the CIA creates a cover for, deep or not, is covert. This means anyone who reports to the CIA and does not share that fact with anyone outside the agency.

By outing Ms. Plame, the person who did so has forcibly retired her. Much of her value as a covert source is lost. Assuming it would even be safe for her to travel, many of her sources would probably no longer associate with her for fear of retribution.

One estimate of the value to train and replace an infantry soldier can be as high a $250,000. If Ms. Plame was a WMD expert, the question becomes how much will it cost to find and train a replacement to have the same amount of experience.

Having enough CIA WMD experts is sort of critical right now. We already started one war because of faulty WMD intelligence. Losing a qualified analyst because someone was playing politics and couldn't keep his mouth shut hurts us. The question also becomes did he have clearance to know that she was CIA? If not, who told him?

It's ironic that when it comes to issues the public has a right to know, this is a very closed administration. When it comes to information that legitimately should be kept secret, suddenly the loose lips are flapping.

Poor Scott McClellan pretty much destroyed any shred of credibility he had left with the press on this.


From here

Sep 29, 2003
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by richlevy

We already started one war because of faulty WMD intelligence.

I'm not real sure I even buy that anymore. I think we were headed to kick some Iraqi ass with or without WMDs. The "belief" that they were there was just the final selling point. Kind of like when Lumberjim throws in the premium stereo with CD changer instead of the single disc jobbie.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

another perspective

Yet another, from one of Plame's CIA classmates.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.


The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

[mrnoodle]

Point taken, as long as she was covert at the time the info came out. Still, for Rove to be criminally liable, he had to know she was undercover and have deliberately outed her with the intent to do harm.

There are still more sides to the story though. Washington is a small place, and the press corps there is incredibly lazy -- one radio guy yesterday likened them to zoo animals waiting to be thrown scraps. The place runs on rumor and off-the-record conversations. One of the current tidbits going around is that Rove found out that Plame was undercover from a reporter, which means that the leak had already occurred. Also, the reporter who is in jail for protecting her source is still in jail, even though Rove has released her from confidentiality. Who is she still protecting, if Rove is the leak?

[jaguar]

Rove should be done for high treason, end of story. He outed, for pure revenge politics, a covert CIA operative in the process undermining directly the US's efforts to find who really has WMD. There are no two ways about it.

[wolf]

I hate repeating myself ... Novak broke the story ... WHO TOLD NOVAK??

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Point taken, as long as she was covert at the time the info came out.

No, even if she were no longer performing covert actions, the fact that she had ever been covert was still classified. The cover company that she was working for was still a secret, and there were still covert people working for it in the field. Outing Plame destroyed that cover, and put everyone involved in danger, not to mention the money and effort wasted.

One of the current tidbits going around is that Rove found out that Plame was undercover from a reporter, which means that the leak had already occurred. Also, the reporter who is in jail for protecting her source is still in jail, even though Rove has released her from confidentiality. Who is she still protecting, if Rove is the leak?

That's what the grand jury is all about, and the eventual trial. It's good to see, though, that the tidbits going around are now of the "maybe Rove didn't commit the crime" variety rather than "maybe no crime was committed". Even so, that tidbit jars a bit with Rove's "I didn't mention her by name" defense.

And finally, no matter who the initial leak was, it was a leak designed to punish someone for speaking out against the administration, and Rove discussed classified information with at least one reporter, without official approval to do so. Laws can be tricky things, so he may squeeze by without actually having committed a crime, but he definitely proved himself unworthy of a clearance.

[mrnoodle]

Not necessarily. Like I said, the Washington press corps is privy to all kinds of deep background info -- they're as much a part of the dance as the politicians themselves. It's looking more and more like Rove could've been simply trying to prevent the reporter from running a bad story (bad in the quality-of-source sense). It happens all the time, completely independent of political bias. It's a very inbred system there.

I suppose we'll see.

And from a purely moral standpoint, where's the journalistic responsibility? If [insert source name here] told the reporter the name of an undercover operative, wouldn't the reporter know that publishing that information could be a Very Bad Thing?

This is a very ugly moment in the jihad against Bush. If it works, Rove gets the axe. If it doesn't, the whole smear attempt looks as silly as the "who sucked Clinton's cock" debacle. (not the leak itself, but the angry mob driving Rove out of town).


edit: IMO, the panicked response from the WH wasn't so much evidence of guilt as it was a reflection of the inexperience of the press secretary. They went into X-treme Defense mode before they had all the facts themselves. Gee, wonder why they're so gun shy?

[BigV]

There will be no interruption of KR's role as GWB's chief advisor. He will also remain in his official capacity of Deputy Chief of Staff.

My perspective of reality and what happens in the WH (stays in the WH, I know I know) intersect at only a couple of points. The letter and spirit of the law do not happen to be any of those points, sadly.

Privately, it is likely that KR will be further rewarded for his actions, since they have produced the desired result in the first place (contributing to the discrediting of an opposition voice) and have additionally provided some distraction from other difficulties the administration is facing now: more grief in Iraq; SC nomination; etc.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

It's looking more and more like Rove could've been simply trying to prevent the reporter from running a bad story (bad in the quality-of-source sense).

I've heard something like that before, but not an explanation. How would Plame's CIA employment negatively affect the quality of a story's sources?

And from a purely moral standpoint, where's the journalistic responsibility? If [insert source name here] told the reporter the name of an undercover operative, wouldn't the reporter know that publishing that information could be a Very Bad Thing?

They should indeed. And while, not having clearances, they can't be prosecuted for it, any reporter who published it should be ashamed.

edit: IMO, the panicked response from the WH wasn't so much evidence of guilt as it was a reflection of the inexperience of the press secretary.

Indeed. Scott McClellan is about the most pathetic spokesman I've ever seen. At least Ari Fleischer had some style when he avoided questions.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I've heard something like that before, but not an explanation. How would Plame's CIA employment negatively affect the quality of a story's sources?

As I understand it, the story goes like this:

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate the possibility of Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium from that country. He got the assignment because of his wife, Plame. Whether she assigned it directly or pulled strings, I don't know, but the senate intelligence committee report last week speaks of a Plame memo linking her to his assignment to Niger.

Wilson claims to have found no Iraq-Niger link vis-a-vis uranium sales. This has since been proven a lie -- several sources now reveal that some kind of deal was in the works, if never finalized. Wilson also made a name for himself as an anti-Bush partisan in a book and some newspaper stuff that he wrote.

Miller was writing some kind of story (about the Plame leak? about the Wilson report? not sure, haven't looked into that part of it) and Rove apparently said something along the lines of, "I wouldn't run with that story, Wilson's wife is CIA and got him that assignment, and he's got a partisan agenda." Or something like that.

This ball was taken by the left and a break was made for the opposing goal line. Whether or not they score or fall flat on their face is up in the air at this point. The leak had already happened at the time of Rove's conversation, it seems like.

[Happy Monkey]

Even granting all that, what does Wilson's wife being CIA and getting him the assignment have to do with anything? What was the point of mentioning it? How does that affect the quality of the report?

[mrnoodle]

I think Rove was implying (maybe he said it directly -- I need to do some more reading on this, if my gall bladder will let me) that Wilson had been sent to Niger by his wife specifically to discredit the WH claim of an Iraq/Niger/uranium connection, and not to do actual fact-finding.