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

[wolf]

Wait a minute ... did I miss something along the line ... I thought that Plame was named by Bob Novak in a story that ran prior to the Time reporter's conversation ... has Novak named his source?

[mrnoodle]

another perspective

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

another perspective

That's it? The other perspective is that because she sometimes worked out of Langley, she wasn't covert?

I work in DC. I have known 1 person who is covert CIA - fake ID's and all (When you are close friends with someone, they tell you secrets. They are not supposed to, but they do.) I've also known a few people who openly work at the CIA, but don't talk about it much. Covert people go to Langley too.

I have read that Plame's cover was that she was an energy analyst for the private company Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front. Why would they go through the trouble of creating a cover for her, if she wasn't undercover? Just because some people knew she was undercover, doesn't mean it was a widely known secret.

[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.

[warch]

Looks like the leakage happened before Mr. creepy Novak broadcast it, and one of the ooopses is that Rove initially publically stated that he learned about Plame's identity and work from Novak's piece, even though his email to Cooper predates that publication.

What I *think* I understand:
Via the memo, Rove was trying to debunk the idea that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. (?) (by saying it was directed by Wilson's agency wife who works on wmd) (and therefore derail the idea that Cheney knew about the fakery before it was info used in the State of the Union address.) By doing that, he revealed that Wilson's wife (implied Plame) worked for the agency(implied CIA) and specifically on wmd issues (implied covert). This was viewed by Wilson as payback for his public criticism and statement about the fakery that was getting press at the time.

I wonder if Novak has been off the hook because he drew his info from the work of other writers, unpublished stories that were in the works? Who knows?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by warch

What I *think* I understand:
Via the memo, Rove was trying to debunk the idea that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. (?) (by saying it was directed by Wilson's agency wife who works on wmd) (and therefore derail the idea that Cheney knew about the fakery before it was info used in the State of the Union address.) By doing that, he revealed that Wilson's wife (implied Plame) worked for the agency(implied CIA) and specifically on wmd issues (implied covert). This was viewed by Wilson as payback for his public criticism and statement about the fakery that was getting press at the time.

That actually makes a lot of sense. It's the first time I've heard that theory. It fits all the pieces, and is well within the realm of possibility.

Let me edit this.
Why would Cheney send Wilson to Niger to possibly poke holes in the one piece of evidence that would take us to war?

[warch]

here's my amateur guess:

Cheney didnt (and wouldnt), and that's what Rove was trying to correct the press about (and zing Wilson at the same time). It was a pitch to maintain that Cheney knew nothing about any suspicion or question about the veracity of this info before using it on the public. A pitch to show that revelations from Wilsons trip didnt reach the powers- blame the CIA disfunction.

Maybe.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by warch

here's my amateur guess:

Cheney didnt (and wouldnt), and that's what Rove was trying to correct the press about (and zing Wilson at the same time). It was a pitch to maintain that Cheney knew nothing about any suspicion or question about the veracity of this info before using it on the public. A pitch to show that revelations from Wilsons trip didnt reach the powers- blame the CIA disfunction.

Maybe.

It's weird that would Rove go that far to "prove" that Cheney didn't authorize the trip, just to zing Wilson and blame the CIA. He could have told Cooper it was someone from the agency, not specifically Wilson's wife...that probably would have been sufficient. How could he not know that what he was doing was a federal offense?

I thought that Wilson reported his findings to the administration BEFORE Dubya's speech. I might have it mixed up.

[mrnoodle]

The one source I know who is intimately familiar with this kind of thing did his work during the early 80s, and has been retired for many years, so current policy might be different. But in those days, he was utterly disassociated with anything "official." Completely off the radar -- he couldn't even get married, or join any kind of organization (civic or otherwise), while he was active. Going to Langley would be tantamount to painting a bullseye in neon orange paint in the middle of his back. And other than the occasional mission, he was private-sector all the way. Wasn't even on the official government timecard until after his covert "retirement," and then they justified his pension by hiring him to teach training classes.

Even now, the only info you will get out of him is that he has experience HALO jumping into jungles, and can open a can of peaches from 1000 yards away with a rifle. I'd be surprised if we know him by the name he was born with.

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.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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.

If it is no big deal, then why did Rove say adamantly that he did not reveal Valerie Plame by name? And why has the administration considered her outing a leak? All the hoopla is not just coming from the media.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

If it is no big deal, then why did Rove say adamantly that he did not reveal Valerie Plame by name? And why has the administration considered her outing a leak? All the hoopla is not just coming from the media.

Whether or not there were any operational ramifications (as if the CIA handles operational issues within earshot of ANYone in the public eye) is an entirely seperate issue from the obvious political brouhaha. This is part of a political game. Rove may or may not have spoken inappropriately, but my (biased) opinion is that it's another swipe at Bush, and nothing more.

Fact A: Someone talked to Rove for some deep background info. Fact B: The left wants Rove's ass in a sling to tarnish Bush. Fact C: Plame has been outed as a CIA operative (though her level of cover is in dispute). Now we see the media reverse-engineering a case against Rove by cobbling together connections from C back to A. I think it'll backfire, but who knows.

[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.

[warch]

I thought that Wilson reported his findings to the administration BEFORE Dubya's speech. I might have it mixed up.

Yup. That's the thing. Wilson did and still, the debunked info was used in the State of the Union speech. How is it that this corrrect info, old news, not reach the top dog as Bush claims? Did the administration knowingly select/adapt intel to provide justification and proof that Saddam had to go, now? This is where Cheney's and other neocons unprecedented presence in CIA operations comes into question. This is a big fall for Tenet. This seems to be about selective adaptation or supression of intelligence. Maybe even (badly) planted information.

[warch]

And regarding if Plame's covert operations were covert enough...If it damaged or delayed in anyway our national effort to assess the threat of wmds, it strikes me as criminal. It put her out there as a target, and further corupted or threatened all covert contacts/info channels she would have had.