• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

White House Outs CIA Agent

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.
 
subgenius said:
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.
 
EvilYeti said:


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


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
subgenius said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
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?
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
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. ;)
 
Some can do no wrong, and the others can do no right.
For some nothing is too good, for the others anything will do.
 
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
 
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.
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.
 
Patrick Fitzgerald

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.
 

Back
Top Bottom