Valerie Plame Wilson testifying before the House
It is good to see her in front of the House.
Update: She was firm and tough. She handled the questions very well. She did what she had to do. She had to say that she was a covert CIA agent and she did. There was a large group of right wing TV talking heads that argued their way into believing that Valerie Plame was not covert. At one time, they were saying that she wasn’t even an agent. My argument is the same that is made in the book Hubris - if Ms. Plame was not covert then why did the CIA turn her name over to the Justice Department for investigation? The only people that the CIA turn over to the Justice Department for investigation is covert agents.
From WaPo:
Valerie Plame, the former CIA officer at the heart of a four-year political furor over the Bush administration’s leak of her identity, lashed out at the White House yesterday, testifying in Congress that the president’s aides destroyed a career she loved and slipped her name to reporters for “purely political motives.”
Plame, breaking her public silence about the case, contended that her name and job “were carelessly and recklessly abused” by the government. Although she and her colleagues knew that “we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies,” she said, “it was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.”
Plame calmly but firmly knocked down longstanding claims by administration allies that the disclosure was not criminal because she had not worked in a covert capacity.
“I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency,” Plame told House members, a horde of journalists and a few antiwar activists. Her work, she said, “was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit.”
Plame also provided the most detailed account to date of her role in a decision by the agency to dispatch her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger five years ago to assess reports that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear material from the African nation.
Rebutting an assertion by White House officials to reporters that she had sent her husband on the trip, Plame said a CIA colleague broached the idea after a call in early 2002 from Vice President Cheney’s office seeking information about Iraqi activity in Niger. Plame said she “wasn’t overjoyed” at the idea because it would leave her alone at bedtime with their 2-year-old twins.
Still, she said, at the direction of her supervisor, she asked her husband whether he would come to CIA headquarters at Langley to discuss the possible trip and sent a quick e-mail about the prospect to the chief of the agency’s counterproliferation division, where she worked.
“I did not suggest him,” she said. “There was no nepotism involved. I didn’t have the authority.”
Plame’s poised, two-hour turn at the witness table, in the marbled hearing room of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was a theatrical sequel to the lengthy trial of Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, which ended last week. Libby was convicted of four felonies for lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about his role in disclosing Plame’s identity.
Her presence on Capitol Hill was part of a hearing called to examine the White House’s handling of classified information, but it largely allowed committee Democrats to flog President Bush and his aides with her testimony. They also accused the White House of a national security violation and of failing to conduct an internal investigation of the leak, as Bush once promised.
The panel’s chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), portrayed Plame as a hero betrayed by her government. “They made you collateral damage,” Waxman said. “Your career was ended. Your life may have been in jeopardy, and they didn’t seem to care.”
Plame is hot. They should have put her on TV much earlier and we could have impeached Bush a long time ago.
By the way, when did the charge become obstruction of justice and perjury and not actually “outing a covert agent?” (perhaps by working in LANGLEY she was not covert.
Oh, that’s right, no actual crime was committed, so to spare embarassment the prosecution has to rely upon obstruction and perjury charges - as if the defendant has an obligation to incriminate himself - I thought the job of the prosecutor was to PROVE guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I must have misread the constitution. My bad.
Unfortunately, we don’t know if a crime was committed since Libby was lying and covering for someone. I’m guessing that lying to the grand jury is a crime but you were taking about outing a CIA agent. As I mentioned in an earlier post - here and here. I would wait to do my victory dance. There does appear to be a presidential executive order 12958 which appears to have been violated. Finally, you may be right, no law besides lying was violated. Then again, there are some things that are flat wrong. Yacking about a covert CIA officer is flat wrong.
Thanks for your comments. BTW, she did look very good in her business suit didn’t she.
Yes, didn’t you know she was a covert agent posing as a normal overt CIA employee and wife of CIA arms investigator and New York Times writer extraordinaire Joe Wilson. That is like the worst cover ever. Covert agents don’t show up for day jobs at the CIA headquarters. They blend in with the people, and have only secret communications with headquarters.
Michael - Thanks for your comments.
Let’s see. In spite of the obvious you still cling to the republican talking point that she was NOT a covert agent. I don’t know it seems that there is overwhelming evidence that she was covert.
1) You have the memo that Colin Powell was reading as he boarded a plane in Africa. That memo Armitage testified was marked with an S noting that passages were classified.
2) If she wasn’t classified then the CIA wouldn’t have turned over her name to the Justice Department to investigate if there was a violation of the Intelligence Protection Identities Act.
3) Valerie Wilson testified under oath that she was covert.
4) The CIA director, General Hayden, has said in a written statement that she was covert.
5) Patrick Fitzgerald has stated in court and in open forum that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent.
6) If Plame wasn’t covert, Libby’s defense team would have challenged this in court. They did not.
Looks like I scored a “slam dunk” posterizing me slamming in your face to use a NCAA basketball analogy.
Yes, I am aware of the story. See above. She was a covert agent posing as a normal CIA employee with a desk job at Langley. Part of her cover was that her husband wrote stories in the NYT about his secret missions for the CIA to Niger to hunt for facts about yellow-cake. That is the perfect cover.
If she wasn’t classified then the CIA wouldn’t have turned over her name to the Justice Department to investigate
And if that woman wasn’t raped at a Duke lacrosse party, Nifong would have never been investigating either. The investigation is proof of the crime, right?
So, I’m guess by watching Get Smart you are an expert on covert agents. You know their habits. You know what their husbands do. You know all. Because of this knowledge you should be able to spot a covert agent just because you can “tell”.
If you are correct, then Valerie Plame will be and should prosecuted for lying to Congress under oath. General Hayden, CIA chief, will be prosecuted for lying under oath. Scooter Libby can have his defense team disbarred for being so incompetent that they never disputed her covert status in a case which revolved around her covert status.
Thanks for your comments, I’ve learn a lot.
I don’t think I have to spell out the reasons that Valerie Plame CIA covert operative status leaking was due for a way to go into a war with Iraq. Under false information, we [the American people] was possibly tricked into a war that we could’ve ignored and saved countless lives of the American soliders.
http://thefreereport.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/valerie-plame-wilson-on-capital-hill/
If Plame was really covert in July 2003 (or within five years of covert), the CIA
was required under the statue to take “affirmative measures” to conceal her relationship to the United States, particularly because the criminal law comes into play. If Plame was really covered by the Act in July 2003, why did:
The CIA allow Plame to attend in May 2003 a Democratic breakfast meeting where Wilson was talking to New York Times columnist
Nicholas Kristoff about his trip to Niger;
The CIA allow Plame to contribute $1000 to Al Gore’s campaign and list her CIA cover business, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, as her
employer
The CIA give Plame a job at its headquarters in Langley when it is mandated by statute “to conceal [a] covert agent’s intelligence
relationship to the United States”
My good right wing friend TCB, thank you for your comments.
We should remember covert means that no one knows what you really do for a living. You have a “cover.” In order to be undercover he must fit in. Therefore, her cover was she was a energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings and Associates. Therefore, she was able to give donations and not call attention to herself by filling in the blank of employer with Brewster Jennings. For some reason, many people believe that covert means completely and totally unseen. Obviously, this is not right.
It is also clear that friends and neighbors thought she was an energy analyst. Therefore, whenever she did worked. Until her cover was blown, no one has come forward and said oh I knew she worked at Langley.
Being at a breakfast meeting with your husband does not seem to be out of the ordinary to me. Maybe that is out of the ordinary to you. Energy analysts don’t go to breakfast meetings?
Unless you are arguing that General Hayden has lied to Representative Waxman and Representative Cummings then your arguments are moot. Both of them testified that they spoke with General Hayden, director of the CIA, who emphatically said that Valerie Plame was a covert agent at the time of her outing. Valerie Plame herself specifically stated that she was a covert agent at the time of her outing, unless you’re arguing that she lied under oath. Scooter Libby’s defense accepted the fact that she was a covert agent. Maybe you’re arguing that they were incompetent. Patrick Fitzgerald stated in the indictment that she was a covert agent. He stated that again, publicly, from the courthouse after the guilty verdict was given.
Then again, maybe the CIA is trying to get at the White House. The White House hung them out to dry over the intelligence errors in Iraq. So maybe this is their attempt to even the score. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that George Tenet was indebted to President Bush. President Bush could easily hung him out to dry after the 9/11 attacks. Instead, President Bush and protected him from assaults coming from both the left and the right. The president had the CIA director right where he wanted him. The president had asked the CIA director to do anything and he would try and get it done. This relationship seemed to throw water in the face of the theory that the CIA was out to get the White House.
I find it interesting that conservatives continually bring up the fact that Valerie Wilson gave money to the Democrats in 2004. They go out of their way to mention that Joe Wilson was an adviser to John Kerry. Somehow, in their discussion, they forget to mention the fact that Joe Wilson was really not a partisan hack. In 2000, he supported and gave money to George Bush. This seems to get lost in the shuffle.
Finally, Bill Harlow, the director of public affairs at the CIA, trying to get Robert Novak to understand the situation. After an initial conversation with Bob Novak, Harlow specifically called Novak back and asked him, “I would ask that you not use her name.” Bob Novak, being somewhat naïve, as, “why not.” Harlow replies she would probably never be stationed overseas again. Exposure of her name would make it difficult for her to travel overseas or conduct other business for the agency. If Mr. Harlow was any planar he would have violated the law for disclosing classified information.
See David Corn’s blog post here for more information on Valerie Plame’s covert status.
Thanks for your comments.
I can assure you that if your well known husband is writing stories in the New York Times about his CIA sponsored investigation into yellow cake, you are not a covert agent investigating nearly the same thing. International arms traffickers that she was supposed to be contacting wouldn’t touch her with a 10 foot pole after that, if they ever did.
See David Corn’s blog post here for more information on Valerie Plame’s covert status.
Good point. How does David Corn know about Plame’s covert status? Who leaked to him? Why haven’t he and his leaker been indicted? Novak never claimed that Plame was covert, that was all Corn.
Michael -
Thanks for your assurance but I’ll not confuse innuendo for data.
As far as David Corn goes, he has written on the Intelligence identities Act before. If you read his column and how he came to that conclusion, you would gain some enlightenment. Also, I would encourage you to read the Act.
Thanks again for your comments.
Yes, I can see how Corn (writer for DailyKos, a partisan blog) is much more credible that Toesing, coarthur of the IIPA. Corn says she was covered under the IIPA, Toesing says she wasn’t. So is Corn in possession of classified material? They asked Toesing the same thing, multiple times.
General Hayden, director of the CIA, who emphatically said that Valerie Plame was a covert agent at the time of her outing.
You should read the transcript again. Waxman said that Hayden did not object to Waxman saying that Plame was a covert agent. This is very different from Hayden “emphatically” saying it. This is nothing more than hearsay.
Michael -
I will grant you that David Corn is a liberal. No doubt. I would however not categorize him as a writer for the DailyKos, instead, and more accurately I would say that he is the Washington Bureau chief for The Nation, a liberal journal.
Finally, I see that that no amount of evidence will convince you that Valerie Plame was covert. Not the special prosecutor, not Valerie Plame, not Rep. Henry Waxman and not the following statement from the Hearing as stated by Henry Waxman -
Again, thanks for your comments.
So you agree with me that Waxman said Plame was covert, not Heyden.
Yep. I agree that Waxman said that his opening statement was cleared by Hayden.
So if one were to say that General Hayden said emphatically that Plame was undercover that would be a lie? He didn’t even say it at all. Someone else said it, and claims that that Heyden didn’t object to him saying it. That is about as un-emphatic as it gets.
Michael -
Quit tripping. Read everything that I wrote. I clearly stated that Waxman and Cummings spoke with Hayden. They stated that Hayden and the CIA agreed with the statement. Emphatically is artistic license.
Look for the Dem’s to ask the CIA to put out an official statement.
Thanks for your comment.
Waxman says that Waxman’s statement was “cleared” by Hayden. What exactly that means is Waxman’s interpretation. For all we know that means he left a message on Hayden’s answering machine asking him if he objected, and since Hayden never returned his call, he assumed it was OK. You can’t attribute this quote to Hayden any more than you can take a Scott McLellan quote and say that Bush said it.
Also, Hayden was appointed in 2006. He has no first hand knowledge of the situation; at best he is relying on documents written by someone else, maybe Plame herself.
If a CIA Director said it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had WMDs, would that make it true? Would you start a war based on that information?
Michael -
Twist it anyway that you would like.
thanks for your comments.
I am looking forward to seeing how you try to spin it when the Senate Intelligence Committee releases the memo Plame wrote recommending her husband for the trip.
No. I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved — I didn’t have the authority.
I’m looking forward to the memo.
Hey, that was a good comment too, and I didn’t even get a thank you.
Actually, as much as I wish they would, I doubt that the Republicans will release the memo, because they don’t play hardball the way the Democrats do. Had the roles been reversed, that memo would have been on a million websites before the sentence had finished.