Rove, Wilson, Plame, and all that jazz
This whole Rove/Wilson/Plame (along with Novak, Cooper, Miller, and others) thing is fairly messy (that is, complicated, not messy in the sense that it’s commonly portrayed) and I feel a long post coming on.
There are several issues at stake here that I’ll try to address: was a crime committed, was Rove the leaker, were Wilson’s assertions accurate, and was it wrong to name Valerie Plame.
First, was a crime committed? The law in question states that in order for the naming of the operative to be illegal, four requirements must be met: 1) the operative must be covert; 2) the person naming the operative has to know that they are covert; 3) the operative must have served overseas in the last five years; 4) the cover of the operative has not already been blown. Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s unclear that Valerie Wilson was even covert. While it’s been asserted that she is, there’s been no confirmation of this. Acquaintances trying to bolster this claim have provided three different jobs they believed she actually had – if she was covert, she did a really lousy job of it if she can’t even keep her story straight on such a basic concept as what kind of work she’s involved in. She did make a political contribution in which her employer was listed as a CIA front business (for those who don’t know, for all political contributions above $5, I think it is, you have to provide various information including your name, job, employer, and place of residence). Further, she was working as an analyst, and, while apparently some analysts do have covert status (but not by any means all of them), she wasn’t the spy that she’s been made out to be. As for whoever leaked her identity to the press knowing she had covert status, well, in the very least, that would be hard to prove. As for the State Department memo that’s being mentioned, it was apparently classified “secret” but to those in government circles, that’s not actually a big deal, it’s a very low-level classification that’s handed out like candy. Code-name, eyes-only – that’s the stuff where the true secrets are kept. However, all the talk on these two points is mostly speculative; the important matter is in the next two points. She was brought back stateside in 1997 because Aldrich Ames had blown her cover. She was “outed” in July 2003. You do the math. As already stated, her cover had been blown, so the fourth requirement is also not met. Not only did the traitor Aldrich Ames blow her cover, though, the CIA itself did so. The agency sent classified information to the U.S. interests section of the Swiss embassy in Havana, and was supposed to seal the documents from the Cuban government, but neglected to do so and the Cubans read the documents. Despite the hype on the front pages, 36 news organizations have said that no crime was committed, citing the fact that she had previously been outed in a friend-of-the-court brief for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the cases of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. So while hyping the story and heavily implying, when not outright saying, that a crime was or could have been committed, it is the official position of all of these news organizations that no crime was, in fact, committed.
Next, was Rove the source of the leak to the press? According to Rove, the press was actually his source on the matter. In his conversation with Novak, Novak mentioned Wilson’s CIA wife getting him the Niger assignment and Rove said, “I heard that, too.” Rove was used to confirm the story rather than being the source (although it’s entirely possible that Rove and Novak were getting their info from the same place, in which case it’s not very effective as confirmation). In Rove’s conversations with Novak and Matt Cooper, the reporter was the one to call and was the first to bring up the topic in both cases. Neither reporter would exactly have been prime grounds for a right-wing conspiracy, either. While Novak is conservative, he wasn’t supportive of the war in Iraq and – what people really forget – his column naming Valerie Plame was actually rather favorable to Wilson. Was this the big Rovian plot to get revenge on Wilson? Sit in his office, wait for reporters to call, then wait for them to bring up the topic of Wilson/Niger and then either affirm what the reporter had already heard or say that his wife had got him the job? Seems kinda far-fetched. Judith Miller, New York Times reporter, is currently in jail for refusing to cooperate in the investigation by naming her source for the information. Who might that be? If it were Rove, she’d have no problem in telling, as he’s already being tossed around, mentioned as having conversations with at least two reporters, and he already waved any privilege to confidentiality. Scooter Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff) is also out in the open about this. So it doesn’t look like it’s either of them. Now, Miller had written several articles on WMD, could her source have been none other than CIA WMD analyst Valerie Plame? A few days after Novak’s column ran, David Corn published an article in The Nation magazine. This was the first article to assert that Plame was a covert employee, and the first to assert that the Bush administration outed her in an effort to get back at Joe Wilson. As Cliff May demonstrates, it’s highly likely that Corn’s source for the article was Wilson (May did some additional work to buttress this claim after the article).
Now, I’d like to go off the main path here and address Wilson’s initial claims about Iraq, Niger, and Uranium. These are important for a point I’ll be making in a bit. First, there are those “sixteen words” from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” First, he’s talking about the British government; he doesn’t say that the American government has learned that. British intelligence did, indeed, come to that conclusion. After the start of the war in Iraq, the Brits did an inquiry into that report, and they stood by that conclusion. So, it’s true that the British government holds that position. As for the subject matter of Saddam seeking uranium in Africa, the most cited claim against it is that the Italian documents supporting the claim have been shown to be inauthentic. However, the British intelligence reports are not based off of the Italian documents. It’s possible that Saddam learned one of the Soviet’s favorite intelligence tricks – after inconvenient intelligence leaks, they would produce documents alleging the same thing that could easily be shown to be fake, so that the fake documents would cast doubt upon the legitimate ones. So intelligence veterans know that forged documents should not always cast doubt upon other documents. As for Wilson’s allegations, the first problem is that he normally says that Iraq did not buy uranium from Niger; however, this was not alleged, it was only alleged that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger. As for his interviews in Niger, he met with former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that Iraqi officials had met with him wishing to discuss “commercial relations” which he (Mayaki) presumed meant uranium. So the Nigerian official himself believed that Iraq had sought to buy uranium. So does Wilson think the Nigerian official was lying to him or are Wilson’s powers of comprehension a little, let’s say, subpar? I suppose he could also be lying for partisan reasons, which he’s shown himself completely capable of already.
And why was Wilson sent to Niger in the first place? He’s an anti-Bush partisan (and was one before investigating the the claims in Niger, so don’t even try the “he was against Bush because he knew Bush was distorting intelligence” line). He got the job because of his wife. His supporters use the weasel words that his wife did not “authorize” the trip. However, you don’t need to be in a position to authorize in order to get a person the job. I’ve had jobs that I got because of people who were not the ones who actually hired me. It’s the same with his wife getting him the job. When the Senate investigated the matter, they came to the same conclusion, that he got the job because she recommended him for it. Why was she interested in getting him the job? Well, maybe she was just trying to throw him a bone, make him feel important; or perhaps they wanted some extra money that came with the assignment; or maybe she was after someone politically reliable to “disprove” the allegations. In the first case, the CIA should be interested in national security, not handing out favors to family members of employees. In the second case, well, basically the same thing. In the third case, she was deliberately undermining national security and/or American foreign policy. She did think that the allegations were “crazy” so she was predisposed to a certain outcome, but it would be hard to prove that she sought to undermine the intelligence-gathering process. Of interesting note, she was apparently on a “year’s unpaid … enforced leave of absence” that she apparently finished in June or early July, according to an article in the London telegraph from July10. There are some interesting questions to be raised about that. While some would be quick to raise objections that it was because Rove outed her (because such people mostly believe Rove is guilty despite the lack of evidence), that argument runs into two problems. First, her leave of absence didn’t start until about a year after she was mentioned in Novak’s article; wouldn’t make much sense to wait a year to put her on leave. Secondly, that it was “enforced” and “unpaid” make it highly dubious to claim that it was related to her “outing.” Even being “outed” she could still work her desk job as an analyst (as she did for about a year before the leave) and the CIA would still pay her for forced leave if it were actually related to something like that. She was not just taking time off, as it was “enforced” not voluntary. So, the question is essentially, what did she do wrong?
Was naming her wrong? Not a chance. Wilson has been popularly portrayed as a whistleblower in this case, but it’s been proven that he was lying. The true whistleblower would be whoever let the word out about his wife and her role in getting him the job (which could be Wilson himself, admittedly). In the least, it shows cronyism and incompetence at CIA. In the worst, it shows a deliberate attempt, by at least one CIA employee, to undermine national security, intelligence, and/or foreign policy. Either way, something’s broke and needs fixing.
Sorry, but this post was rather hastily done, and doesn't quite address everything I wanted to address or go into as much depth as I wanted. I just wanted to get something out there that contained my thoughts on the matter and some information that wasn't getting much play in the mainstream media.
There are several issues at stake here that I’ll try to address: was a crime committed, was Rove the leaker, were Wilson’s assertions accurate, and was it wrong to name Valerie Plame.
First, was a crime committed? The law in question states that in order for the naming of the operative to be illegal, four requirements must be met: 1) the operative must be covert; 2) the person naming the operative has to know that they are covert; 3) the operative must have served overseas in the last five years; 4) the cover of the operative has not already been blown. Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s unclear that Valerie Wilson was even covert. While it’s been asserted that she is, there’s been no confirmation of this. Acquaintances trying to bolster this claim have provided three different jobs they believed she actually had – if she was covert, she did a really lousy job of it if she can’t even keep her story straight on such a basic concept as what kind of work she’s involved in. She did make a political contribution in which her employer was listed as a CIA front business (for those who don’t know, for all political contributions above $5, I think it is, you have to provide various information including your name, job, employer, and place of residence). Further, she was working as an analyst, and, while apparently some analysts do have covert status (but not by any means all of them), she wasn’t the spy that she’s been made out to be. As for whoever leaked her identity to the press knowing she had covert status, well, in the very least, that would be hard to prove. As for the State Department memo that’s being mentioned, it was apparently classified “secret” but to those in government circles, that’s not actually a big deal, it’s a very low-level classification that’s handed out like candy. Code-name, eyes-only – that’s the stuff where the true secrets are kept. However, all the talk on these two points is mostly speculative; the important matter is in the next two points. She was brought back stateside in 1997 because Aldrich Ames had blown her cover. She was “outed” in July 2003. You do the math. As already stated, her cover had been blown, so the fourth requirement is also not met. Not only did the traitor Aldrich Ames blow her cover, though, the CIA itself did so. The agency sent classified information to the U.S. interests section of the Swiss embassy in Havana, and was supposed to seal the documents from the Cuban government, but neglected to do so and the Cubans read the documents. Despite the hype on the front pages, 36 news organizations have said that no crime was committed, citing the fact that she had previously been outed in a friend-of-the-court brief for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the cases of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. So while hyping the story and heavily implying, when not outright saying, that a crime was or could have been committed, it is the official position of all of these news organizations that no crime was, in fact, committed.
Next, was Rove the source of the leak to the press? According to Rove, the press was actually his source on the matter. In his conversation with Novak, Novak mentioned Wilson’s CIA wife getting him the Niger assignment and Rove said, “I heard that, too.” Rove was used to confirm the story rather than being the source (although it’s entirely possible that Rove and Novak were getting their info from the same place, in which case it’s not very effective as confirmation). In Rove’s conversations with Novak and Matt Cooper, the reporter was the one to call and was the first to bring up the topic in both cases. Neither reporter would exactly have been prime grounds for a right-wing conspiracy, either. While Novak is conservative, he wasn’t supportive of the war in Iraq and – what people really forget – his column naming Valerie Plame was actually rather favorable to Wilson. Was this the big Rovian plot to get revenge on Wilson? Sit in his office, wait for reporters to call, then wait for them to bring up the topic of Wilson/Niger and then either affirm what the reporter had already heard or say that his wife had got him the job? Seems kinda far-fetched. Judith Miller, New York Times reporter, is currently in jail for refusing to cooperate in the investigation by naming her source for the information. Who might that be? If it were Rove, she’d have no problem in telling, as he’s already being tossed around, mentioned as having conversations with at least two reporters, and he already waved any privilege to confidentiality. Scooter Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff) is also out in the open about this. So it doesn’t look like it’s either of them. Now, Miller had written several articles on WMD, could her source have been none other than CIA WMD analyst Valerie Plame? A few days after Novak’s column ran, David Corn published an article in The Nation magazine. This was the first article to assert that Plame was a covert employee, and the first to assert that the Bush administration outed her in an effort to get back at Joe Wilson. As Cliff May demonstrates, it’s highly likely that Corn’s source for the article was Wilson (May did some additional work to buttress this claim after the article).
Now, I’d like to go off the main path here and address Wilson’s initial claims about Iraq, Niger, and Uranium. These are important for a point I’ll be making in a bit. First, there are those “sixteen words” from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” First, he’s talking about the British government; he doesn’t say that the American government has learned that. British intelligence did, indeed, come to that conclusion. After the start of the war in Iraq, the Brits did an inquiry into that report, and they stood by that conclusion. So, it’s true that the British government holds that position. As for the subject matter of Saddam seeking uranium in Africa, the most cited claim against it is that the Italian documents supporting the claim have been shown to be inauthentic. However, the British intelligence reports are not based off of the Italian documents. It’s possible that Saddam learned one of the Soviet’s favorite intelligence tricks – after inconvenient intelligence leaks, they would produce documents alleging the same thing that could easily be shown to be fake, so that the fake documents would cast doubt upon the legitimate ones. So intelligence veterans know that forged documents should not always cast doubt upon other documents. As for Wilson’s allegations, the first problem is that he normally says that Iraq did not buy uranium from Niger; however, this was not alleged, it was only alleged that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger. As for his interviews in Niger, he met with former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that Iraqi officials had met with him wishing to discuss “commercial relations” which he (Mayaki) presumed meant uranium. So the Nigerian official himself believed that Iraq had sought to buy uranium. So does Wilson think the Nigerian official was lying to him or are Wilson’s powers of comprehension a little, let’s say, subpar? I suppose he could also be lying for partisan reasons, which he’s shown himself completely capable of already.
And why was Wilson sent to Niger in the first place? He’s an anti-Bush partisan (and was one before investigating the the claims in Niger, so don’t even try the “he was against Bush because he knew Bush was distorting intelligence” line). He got the job because of his wife. His supporters use the weasel words that his wife did not “authorize” the trip. However, you don’t need to be in a position to authorize in order to get a person the job. I’ve had jobs that I got because of people who were not the ones who actually hired me. It’s the same with his wife getting him the job. When the Senate investigated the matter, they came to the same conclusion, that he got the job because she recommended him for it. Why was she interested in getting him the job? Well, maybe she was just trying to throw him a bone, make him feel important; or perhaps they wanted some extra money that came with the assignment; or maybe she was after someone politically reliable to “disprove” the allegations. In the first case, the CIA should be interested in national security, not handing out favors to family members of employees. In the second case, well, basically the same thing. In the third case, she was deliberately undermining national security and/or American foreign policy. She did think that the allegations were “crazy” so she was predisposed to a certain outcome, but it would be hard to prove that she sought to undermine the intelligence-gathering process. Of interesting note, she was apparently on a “year’s unpaid … enforced leave of absence” that she apparently finished in June or early July, according to an article in the London telegraph from July10. There are some interesting questions to be raised about that. While some would be quick to raise objections that it was because Rove outed her (because such people mostly believe Rove is guilty despite the lack of evidence), that argument runs into two problems. First, her leave of absence didn’t start until about a year after she was mentioned in Novak’s article; wouldn’t make much sense to wait a year to put her on leave. Secondly, that it was “enforced” and “unpaid” make it highly dubious to claim that it was related to her “outing.” Even being “outed” she could still work her desk job as an analyst (as she did for about a year before the leave) and the CIA would still pay her for forced leave if it were actually related to something like that. She was not just taking time off, as it was “enforced” not voluntary. So, the question is essentially, what did she do wrong?
Was naming her wrong? Not a chance. Wilson has been popularly portrayed as a whistleblower in this case, but it’s been proven that he was lying. The true whistleblower would be whoever let the word out about his wife and her role in getting him the job (which could be Wilson himself, admittedly). In the least, it shows cronyism and incompetence at CIA. In the worst, it shows a deliberate attempt, by at least one CIA employee, to undermine national security, intelligence, and/or foreign policy. Either way, something’s broke and needs fixing.
Sorry, but this post was rather hastily done, and doesn't quite address everything I wanted to address or go into as much depth as I wanted. I just wanted to get something out there that contained my thoughts on the matter and some information that wasn't getting much play in the mainstream media.
posted by DC | 12:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home