Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO?

Lucky Shot · 07-11-2006, 07:58 PM

Valerie Plame's identity according to Bob Novak was outed by some sound investigations, but the primary source was Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Joe Wilson gave up the name, curious to hear who that official was he had the conversation with, but if she was supposed to be super secret, her name shouldn't be in Who's Who.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Novak

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15988

How much money did we spend on this?

Lucky Shot

xTYBALTx · 07-11-2006, 08:20 PM

I'm not seeing that text in the link...

Steeler · 07-11-2006, 08:24 PM

As I recall, her NAME was never secret. Her status as an operative was secret. So his source said "Joe Wilson's wife is an operative, but I can't legally give out the name of an operative." (wink wink nudge nudge) So Novak looks up the name of Wilson's wife in Who's Who and puts two and two together. All by himself! What a dashing investigative reporter!

I also don't see that information at the link - just a note that an article will appear tomorrow.

Lucky Shot · 07-11-2006, 08:25 PM

What the heck? They edited it. It now says full column to be available tomorrow.

It was the second to last paragraph in the column.

Lucky Shot

Lucky Shot · 07-11-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

As I recall, her NAME was never secret. Her status as an operative was secret. So his source said "Joe Wilson's wife is an operative, but I can't legally give out the name of an operative." (wink wink nudge nudge) So Novak looks up the name of Wilson's wife in Who's Who and puts two and two together. All by himself! What a dashing investigative reporter!

I also don't see that information at the link - just a note that an article will appear tomorrow.

How many other secret operatives are listed in Who's Who?

Steeler · 07-11-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

How many other secret operatives are listed in Who's Who?

An intriguing question. Seriously, I wonder how many "power" players in Washington have side jobs or are doing clandestine work for any number of official agencies.

**leejo** · 07-11-2006, 09:32 PM

The issue isn't Novak's journalistic skills, but the left's politization of the non-leak of a non-secret agent's name.

Long summer. Longer fall.

Steeler · 07-11-2006, 11:23 PM

The CIA filed a complaint. It is being investigated. If you think the shadowy phantom "left" is manipulating the CIA, it's time to get fitted for a new hat. This fall's colors: tin foil.

xTYBALTx · 07-12-2006, 12:53 AM

C'mon. As already stated, Rove said 'Wilson's wife is an operative.' Novak looked up her name in Wilson's book. Saying that Wilson outed his wife is utter nonsense.

While the weight of the leak is clearly debatable, there is currently no reason at all to believe that anyone but Rove et. al. leaked her status as an operative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AP

WASHINGTON - Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

Link.

Lucky Shot · 07-12-2006, 01:20 AM

Cut and paste the article listed earlier, in case it becomes truncated again.

Quote:

by Robert Novak
Posted Jul 12, 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.

I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

The official who slipped on this according to Novak was not a political gunslinger... Not likely Rove as Novak would likely consider him to be political (see 3rd paragraph from the end). Confirmed maybe.

Lucky Shot

AMosely · 07-12-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

The issue isn't Novak's journalistic skills, but the left's politization of the non-leak of a non-secret agent's name.

It wasn't her name, but her status as a CIA operative that was leaked - and yes, it was leaked, on purpose. Illegal? Probably not. Vindictive and revengeful? Yes.

**leejo** · 07-12-2006, 11:59 AM

Not vindictive and revengeful, setting the record straight. Ambassador Good Hair was running all over town shooting his mouth off saying false things and the white house responded, as any white house would, by sawing him off at the knees.

Steeler · 07-12-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Wilson

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

That is what he was saying - that in his opinion the Niger claim was false and should not be considered reliable intelligence supporting war with Iraq. That his opinion seems to have been CORRECT apparently means little to the White House, as it is now generally accepted that Novak's revelation of Plame's status was a political hit piece to discredit Wilson's qualifications by citing his mission as the result of nepotism.

So, to recap: The White House saw a political liability in Joe Wilson, regardless of the truth of his statements, and began a small smear campaign to silence him. That smear in the process leaked classified information which, however trivial or non-trivial, was enough of a violation to prompt a CIA complaint and investigation. I'm puzzled as to how this debate shifted from, "the President didn't know about the illegal activity (and actually denounced it)" to "the President was justified in the illegal activity."

I'm sick of this cult of personality BS. Wilson was right. The White House was wrong. Accept it.

**USN_Squid** · 07-12-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

That his opinion seems to have been CORRECT ....

I'm sick of this cult of personality BS. Wilson was right. The White House was wrong. Accept it.

No, I won't.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

Kerostasis · 07-12-2006, 12:41 PM

Um, I'm sorry Steeler...the facts don't quite support you there. The investigation after the fact determined that Wilson's report was actually full of LIES intended to discredit Bush, leaving the White House with little choice but to try and fight back.

October 2005

Quote:

The first was that Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, lied when he said or implied that he had been sent to Niger by Vice-President Dick Cheney, and denied that his wife had sponsored his trip. The second was that Joe Wilson lied when he wrote, in the pages of the New York Times, that his own mission to Niger had demonstrated that the President misled the American people when he said that Saddam Hussein's regime had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

This is the really shocking omission from Dionne's indictment of the administration. Understand, there is no doubt about the fact that Wilson's attack on Bush was a lie. The Senate intelligence committee's report is definitive. Wilson returned from Niger and reported to the CIA that that country's former head of state had told him that he received an overture from Iraq that he understood as an attempt to buy uranium. So Wilson's report supported the Africa claim, it didn't refute it. That's what the Intelligence Committee found, and Wilson's claim to the contrary was a lie and a vicious slander of President Bush.

July 2004

Quote:

First, contrary to what he wrote in the New York Times, Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, other European agencies — and, as we now know, the CIA report, based on Mr. Wilson's original briefing on it. Against that proposition is Mr. Wilson's revised version for the Times.

The Day after the Senate Report on Joe Wilson

Quote:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
...
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Regardless of how the court case comes out on leaking Plame's name--Oops! That already finished and it was determined not to have been a crime!--But regardless, its clear Joe Wilson is nothing more than a lying Democratic Hitman.

07-11-2006, 08:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO? I'm not seeing that text in the link... __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

07-11-2006, 08:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO? As I recall, her NAME was never secret. Her status as an operative was secret. So his source said "Joe Wilson's wife is an operative, but I can't legally give out the name of an operative." (wink wink nudge nudge) So Novak looks up the name of Wilson's wife in Who's Who and puts two and two together. All by himself! What a dashing investigative reporter! I also don't see that information at the link - just a note that an article will appear tomorrow. __________________

07-11-2006, 08:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
Lucky Shot Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,639	Re: Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO? What the heck? They edited it. It now says full column to be available tomorrow. It was the second to last paragraph in the column. Lucky Shot

07-11-2006, 09:32 PM	#7 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO? The issue isn't Novak's journalistic skills, but the left's politization of the non-leak of a non-secret agent's name. Long summer. Longer fall.

07-11-2006, 11:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO? The CIA filed a complaint. It is being investigated. If you think the shadowy phantom "left" is manipulating the CIA, it's time to get fitted for a new hat. This fall's colors: tin foil. __________________

07-12-2006, 11:59 AM	#12 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Valerie Plame was outed by Who? WHO? Not vindictive and revengeful, setting the record straight. Ambassador Good Hair was running all over town shooting his mouth off saying false things and the white house responded, as any white house would, by sawing him off at the knees.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chris Mathews: Valerie Plame	Lucky Shot	The Sandbox	5	09-09-2006 10:20 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links