In mentioning the "leak" of her non-covert status, she says her true name and affiliation "were exposed in the national media on July 14th 2003 after a leak by administration officials."

It was a security violation. It was a crime. It was treasonous.

Well, I'm afraid that until Bush grows a pair this type of thing will continue. It has gotten almost funny, everyday in the msm there are several stories that are negative toward Bush, everything is a "scandal". If Bush does not start fighting back it may set the conservative movement back years and possibly decades.

It would appear that the Republicans present at today's hearing have stipulated that Ms. Plame was covert. The CIA seems to have gotten the committee to agree to this as part of the stipulation concerning the areas of inquiry that are off-limits. The Republican line of inquiry has been limited to whether anyone at CIA affirmatively informed administration officials of Plame's covert status. Why will you not take the word of the CIA?

There was no confirmation of being covert. This was another attempt by the Dems to play word games.

The entire Fitzgerald investigation never stated that she was covert, and if she was, Armitage would have been brought up on charges.

What are you attempting to imply, Hermie, that the CIA is an arm of the Democratic party?

ok - petty, but i agree - she should have brought up armitage as well. nonetheless, let's hope you on the far right who still cling mercilessly to the notion that she was not covert can now dunk your heads in the toilet right after flushing that canard down it once and for all.

Matt: "UPDATE: Plame Bombshell: VP Listened to CIA in Run-Up to War."

Wait 'till you read the transcript. I think you may be missing something.

Oh, Vicky Toensing is up. This ought to be very interesting. I think it's time for an early lunch.

Well, I'm afraid that until Bush grows a pair this type of thing will continue. It has gotten almost funny, everyday in the msm there are several stories that are negative toward Bush, everything is a "scandal". If Bush does not start fighting back it may set the conservative movement back years and possibly decades.

damn right it will continue. problem is, this admin has been going about in such lawless fashion and with hubris and arrogance not seen since the nixon era that it's going to take more than the next two years to uncover and shed light on every scandal perpetrated by bush and his machiavellian cohorts.

the fact that the paper has to cover so much scandalous behavior is a direct result of the actions of the administration. recall, the last four years they had the complicity of a rubber-stamp congress that chose to look the other way. now that the tides have turned (and most likely for the long term), the american people can finally expect the investigations and the uncovering of all the illicit actions and behavior that have accumulated over the period.

Henry Waxman - "I have been advised by the CIA, that even now after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for these hearings. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."

Valerie Plame - "I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert"

It’s all on the record now, under oath. If General Hayden, the CIA or Ms. Wilson is lying I'm sure Republicans will file charges. Watching the panel today however suggests that they are all telling the truth.

As to why the Fitzgerald investigation did not bring up charges against Armitage, Fitzgerald stated that someone was obstructing justice and lying to investigators making it impossible to find the truth. Who was that someone? Libby. And he was found guilty on 4 counts.

Are you saying that Fitzgerald doesn't know that Armitage was the source?

As any lawyer would tell you; "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

Richard Armitage admitted it ... publicly!

L4L,
Your right...I can only surmise FitzFong couldn't prove Plame was covert.

No, thats not it. The law requires three tests.
1. The operative must be covert.
2. The operative must be abroad, or have been repatriated within a specified time.
3. The exposure must have been deliberate and with the intent to cause harm.

The way I understand it is conditions 2 and 3 were not met. Even if condition 2 was met (debateble), condition 3 was not met.

No crime. No treason. An accident.

Meanwhile, writing an op-ed piece attacking the administration if your wife IS a covert agent seems pretty damn foolish to me. Certainly Wilson knew that this could lead to people looking into just who he was... and just maybe his wifes status would be discussed?

Kahn,

You mean that Joe Wilson would actually write an op-ed filled with proof that the integillence leading up to the War in Iraq was false with the full knowledge that someone might actually look into who was behind sending him to Niger, and that person might be his wife, who, up to that time, no one knew worked at the CIA. Why would he do such a thing? I thought he was a true patriot. Wouldn't that potentially expose his wife as a CIA employee?

/sarcasm off

A-10, Right. And he did not even do that. A bi-partisan commitee found his report was wrong and poorly done. All the more reason some peole might look int just who the heck he was.

Kahn,

But wouldn't that require that they have an open mind and not already be biased? Do you think it is humanly possible for a liberal to look at the facts and make a rational decision?

Where is Armitage? Maybe Rove allowed Bush appointed Fitzpatrick to take only one sacrificial lamb unless he too wanted to be listed with the other gang of eight U.S Attorneys to get the boot. Isn’t it odd with each scandal one and only one comes up missing.

I think what is important here is as mentioned before her testimony was under oath. It was not one of those Arlen Specter made for Fox news spectacles. There can be no question she was a Covert Agent. If not I think perjury charges from a number of loyal Bush vetted U.S Attorneys will be forth coming.

I don't know enough about this type of law, but it sure sounds like outing an agent and thereby their network is right up there with treason. But republicans have such low standards maybe they were able to allow outing a CIA agent as part of the Patriot Act.

A bi-partisan commitee found his report was wrong and poorly done. All the more reason some peole might look int just who the heck he was.

Posted by: Kahn at March 16, 2007 03:01 PM

Where is this report? Was testimony under oath?

No. At least none I've met.

Kahn,

Good point. Anyone who questions this administration should clearly expect their family's background to be investigated and "leaked" to the media. As far as jeopardizing something important to national security this is clearly Joe Wilson's fault he should have expected it.

You know, it truly amazes me how quickly people are inclined to apply double standards in order to rationalize their ideological purity. If they are advocates of ideology A, then merely the allegation of impropriety against anyone they manage to identify as member of ideology B has the force of proof. In contrast, any allegation against a member of their own ideology A (and whom they can't manage to disown) must be proved by 1. outright admission, 2. by a guilty plea, or 3. being found guilty in a court of law in order for it to have any import whatsoever -- and even then they often try to find some rationalization to mitigate its importance. I'm not saying there aren't mitigating circumstances -- reality essentially requires them -- rarely is anything ever black or white. What I'm saying is that too many people don't even attempt to apply them fairly.

Obviously I'm going to be labeled as a libbie for sticking to the issue at hand (except by those that are aware of my past criticisms and support for various issues more favored by one side or the other), but allow me to examine Kahn's three points:

1. The operative must be covert.
2. The operative must be abroad, or have been repatriated within a specified time.
3. The exposure must have been deliberate and with the intent to cause harm.

I apologize Kahn, because I don't really know if your acknowledgement of 1. represents a change of opinion on your part. But just on that basis revealing Plame's status should not have happened. Granted, points 2 and 3 are necessary to prove criminal intent under the IIPA law (and IMO, Plame put 2. pretty well to rest this morning, too). But that doesn't change the fact that 1. did happen. And because it happened it is a big deal. That has been my contention all along. It should not have happened. And more importantly, it shouldn't happen again. And frankly, on the basis of the bits and snatches of the testimony I heard today, I'd say that both the WH and the CIA have some serious explaining to do.

It is also important to recognize that the IIPA law is not the only one that applies. There is also Executive Order 12958, which covers revelations of classified info by those who have applicable security clearance to those that do not. And THAT issue does not only apply to Armitage. True, Armitage was principally responsible for leaking to Novak (and Woodward, and perhaps even Andrea Mitchell), and Novak leaked the info to the general public. But obviously other officials were responsible for leaking the info to other reporters through independent channels. The magnitude of the whole operation was pretty deplorable. And because it was, let's hope it was ONLY reporters they were leaking to, not to anyone else. And let's hope that those reporters were trustworthy enough to sit on the info rather than disseminate it to others besides "the public", if you know what I mean.

On that basis Kahn, I would say that your conclusion: "No crime. No treason. An accident." rings hollow to me. In fact, I'm astounded that anyone who has acknowledged what you have acknowledged could say that. It seems to me that doing so requires a blind subscription to one ideology (A) or the other (B).

Are there other incidents that I think were not sufficiently or fairly investigated? Yes. But that doesn't change any of the facts of the present case, either. Not all of the troops you need to support are located on narrowly defined battlefields. Plame's husband is an ass. Big deal. Attack him, not her. In fact, by attacking him and not her, her cover would have been enhanced, IMO.

Rico - who are you referring to? Armitage leaked it. He bumbled it, and it was not malicios. So - should he be charged anyways? You do realize that it IS Armitage you're talking about, right?

And AMP - when you claim to have been sent by the VP and you KNOW that wassn't true. Well, yes you should expect some fallout. When you write a report later debunked by a bi-partisan commitee, then yes you should expect some fall-out.

We don't prosecute people because we don't like them or their agenda. Well, at least Republicans don't. Democrats seem to feel that being Republican IS a crime.

Democrats seem to feel that being Republican IS a crime.

You mean it isn't?

This whole Plame-Wilson fiasco reeks of narcissism...

"Henry Waxman - "I have been advised by the CIA, that even now after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests."

We don't need to know the full nature and scope and character of Mrs. Wilsons service. We just need to know if she was covert AT THE TIME OF THE ALEDGED DSICLOURE.

"But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for these hearings. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information." Henry Waxman

Uhhh excuse me for not believing one word out of that partsan hack's mouth. Waxman wasn't under oath and General Hayden wasn't ever called to testify under oath as to her status...which is the crux of all of this. Could it be that he might testify otherwise?

Treason??!!!!

Why was no one charged with a crime by Fitzgerald for outing a covert agent?

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CRIME. Sorry leftists.

"I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert" -Valerie Plame -

From another democrat partisan with a book and movie deal in the wings. To paraphrase a famous dem..."That depend upon what the definition of was was."

It appears that at one time she WAS covert it is not as clear by her statement if she WAS covert AT THE TIME OF THE ALEDGED DISCLOSURE.

IN addition her testimony regarding her involvement in the assignment of her husband directly controverts the conclusions of the Senate investigation on the matter.

In addition the Senate investigation found that Wilson's trip confirmed the attempt of Iraq to obtain yellowcake.

But go ahead and ignore the facts lefties and keep up these meaningless show trials.

The next one to be to investigate how the Whitehouse had the unmitigated gall to excercised presidential perogative to fire attorneys that are employed at the pleasure of the President.

Matt, no matter how many times you keep saying that Plame was "non-covert" it does not make it true. The truth is that her identity was leaked by the White House to punish her husband for his article in the New York Times.
That in itself is a crime, I believe the word treason would be the right description.

treason |?tr?z?n| noun (also high treason) the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government : they were convicted of treason. • the action of betraying someone or something : doubt is the ultimate treason against faith. • ( petty treason) historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.

Kahn: "Rico - who are you referring to? Armitage leaked it. He bumbled it, and it was not malicios. So - should he be charged anyways? You do realize that it IS Armitage you're talking about, right?"

Oh goodness. I get the impression you didn't understand a word I said. No I'm not talking just about Armitage. Without going into detail (because I thought I already had), the question I have is why on earth did Armitage know what he knew in the first place? What sort of "need to know" loop was he in? And if he was, who else was -- and why? And if it could possibly be explained why Armitage knew Plame was a CIA employee, why didn't he also know she was covert? Ditto all the others in the "loop".

This whole episode smacks of an extreme amount of carelessness. And like I said, on the basis of what I heard today, both the WH and the CIA have some serious explaining to do. And those that are at fault should, at the very least, have their security clearances revoked.

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who expose the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

Who could have said that?

Just as an aside, it doesn't seem to bother anyone here that the WH didn't do ANY investigation of the leak. None, Nada, Zero, Zip! Even if a crime wasn't committed, certainly classified info was disclosed (I hope no one here disputes that). Now, I've had a Top Secret clearance in the past and I can tell you that there would certainly be a serious look into an outing, intentional or otherwise. Hell, there would be an investigation if someone left a document unattended. Perhaps we should hear from Spook on this one. What do you think? The WH did NOTHING. Is this what you would expect? Thought so.

By the way, Mark, your piece on the subprime meltdown, funny how you said you've been expecting it...Why is it that when I mentioned it, not even a week ago(not to mention last May), I am labeled as a prophet of doom and completely called out? I suppose that unless a Republican says it, it can't be true. One day, quite soon I'm afraid, you will begin to see the "facts on the ground."

If Plame was a covert officer and she was outed, that is an act of treason.

We shall see.

Wade

Just to resolve this debate:

"WAXMAN: Ms. Wilson, it's the practice of this committee that all witnesses are administered an oath, and I'd like to ask you to stand and raise your right hand.

Do you promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

WILSON: I do.

WAXMAN: Thank you."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/plame/plame_transcript_031607.html

Phnx and others,

Your belief that VPW was not covert seems to rest on the fact that no one was eventually prosecuted for outing her. In fact, the law that Rove and Armitage would have been charged under, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, requires much more than simply revealing the identity of a covert agent. It requires a prosecutor to establish the defendant's state of mind during the process, which can be a difficult threshold to prove in court. The threshold is so high, in fact, that according to Wikipedia, only one person has been successfully prosecuted under the law. Check this out for more info:
http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/iipa.pdf

The fact that Rove and Armitage have not been charged with violating this law has little bearing on a) whether VPW was or was not covert and b) whether it was legal or somewhat acceptable for Libby to lie, obstruct justice, or give false statements to a grand jury.

Gar Wood

One of the elements for a crime (except traffic laws) is criminal intent. Armitage had no criminal intent, thus no crime. The man was a careless gossip and he should no longer be trusted in government security matters.

Chaney and Libby, however, had criminal intent when they revealed Plame's covert status.

A covert status that was acknowleged by all present at today's hearing.

Perhaps we should hear from Spook on this one. What do you think? The WH did NOTHING. Is this what you would expect? Thought so.

3MY, there is so much to this whole affair that doesn't make sense. It's almost as if there were multiple independent levels of conspiracies going on simultaneously by groups and individuals with different agendas. I think there have been so many lies told by so many people that it is virtually impossible to tell what is truth and what is fiction. I don't know when you had a top secret clearance; I had a TSSI plus applicable code words from 1968 to 1989. From everything I read today, it's pretty clear that inside our government, security is not taken nearly as seriously as it was back in my day, and that's sad. Actually, it's beyond sad, it's criminal, and both sides are guilty of exploiting national security for political gain. IMHO, we will ultimately pay a horrible price.

If Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the original leaker within a couple weeks of taking over the investigation, then I'd have to assume that the WH knew before that, and, if that's the case, what would there be to investigate?

From everthing I've read, Fitzgerald is a pretty smart guy. The fact that all he could get out of this investigation is a process crime ought to tell you something.

I got to watch the portion of the hearing involving Plame's opening statement and a few questions, but nothing much after that. Rick Ballard at The American Thinker had a piece yesterday that concluded with the following questions that I would have liked to have seen asked of Ms. Plame:

Questions for Valerie Plame Wilson:

Since the CIA maintains an office which is responsible for contacts with the press, on what date did you report your May 2 and 3 contacts with Nicholas Kristof to that office?

Did you also inform that office of the nature of your contacts? Who did you speak to?

Specifically what did you report?

What is the procedure at the CIA for reporting that classified information has been compromised? What typically takes place after a report is made?

Have you ever followed that procedure? How many times, and on what dates?

Did you disclose the nature of the conversations between your husband and reporters to the CIA?

When did you first inform Joe Wilson that you worked for the CIA?

What did you tell him was the nature of your job at the agency?

When you informed him that you worked for the CIA, was he aware that you wanted to keep your identity protected?

Did you and he discuss the methods of keeping your identity protected?

Your name, Valerie Plame, was listed in Who's Who in America from 1999 through 2005, under your husband's listing? Did you seek special permission from the CIA to be included in that entry?

Did you accompany Joe Wilson to the 2003 EPIC Iraq forum?

Did your husband consult with you before including your maiden name in his bio published at that conference? Did you seek and obtain permission from the CIA for that disclosure?

Did you discuss this publication with your bosses at Langley?

Is it common practice for CIA agents to donate to political campaigns? When you contributed to the Gore campaign in 1999 under your own name, did you have any obligation to report that to your superiors?

At the time of the alleged disclosure by Richard Armitage that you worked at the agency, your husband was working for the Kerry campaign, correct?

Did you also donate money to Senator Kerry's campaign? What about organizations trying to help elect Senator Kerry?

When you informed Joe Wilson that you worked at the CIA, did you file a report that your identity had been compromised?

When you became aware that your husband had identified you in Who's Who in America, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?

When you learned that your husband had included your name in his bio for the EPIC Iraq forum, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?

When you learned that Joe Wilson had included your name in his bio at the Middle East Institute, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?

When you learned that your husband included your name in his bio with the CPS Corporate & Public Strategy Advisory Group, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?

At anytime did you, or anyone at the CIA, ask Joe Wilson to stop exposing your identity?

I believe Ms. Plame claimed that she could count on one hand the number of people outside the Agency who knew her identity at the time of Novak's column. I think that's probably the biggest lie of all. I think, if the truth ever comes out (I'm not holding my breath) we will find that there were so many people who knew her identity, through either her own carelessness or her husband's arrogance, that she was outed by beltway gossip, not deliberate, malicious leaks.

Spook, unfortunately you know as well as I that even an unintentional disclosure "requires" at a minimum an investigation to determine what happened and if it could be prevented in the future. That was made very clear today by the security officials at the hearing. You completely avoided my question. I didn't say it was or wasn't a crime, but according to all accounts, it was an unauthorized release of classified information. So once again, do you think that the response by the WH and security department doing NOTHING was appropriate given the disclosure of classified info? Do you think Bush was truthful when he said there would be an investigation into it?

Perhaps there was an investigation something like this - GW looks around the room, says "ok, who did it?" All present raise their hands. GW says, "good job, case closed, lets move on."

so when does Armitage get fired? The President did say he would fire anyone that leaked this most secretive information, and he should also pardon Libby in the next sentence, all this should be done live at 9p EST nationally televised. should take less than 30 seconds with Presidential music and all.

I'm sorry, 3MY, It all depends on when the WH knew Armitage was the leaker and when Bush made the statement that you attribute to him about investigating the matter. I don't know the answer to that. If the two events happened at or about the wame time, there wouldn't have been anything else to investigate. I dont' know what else to tell you.

CW,

Even supposing she was covert and even supposing her name was deliberately leaked, there is still the fact that what the Administration was trying to do was debunk the lies of Joe Wilson...and, of course, she wasn't covert and her name wasn't leaked.

Gar,

Thanks for clearing that up - now I need to know the statute of limitations on lying under oath to Congress...we can't prosecute her while Bush is President, but the next President, if he's Republican (Democrats don't seem to have a mind to prosecute actual criminals), can indict her for perjury.

Mark:

Whats up with this "we" stuff? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Your analogy about blue skies being green applies to YOU! She testified under oath that she was covert and that she did not send her husband to Niger. What do you know that she does not and more to the point, how to you know it?
If I were you, I would be more concerned about just how many more people in your beloved Bush administration are going to be raising their right hands in the very near future. Better up the Thorezine, its going to be a rough ride. I see the General saddling up right now for his ride back to Texas.

Henry Waxman - "I have been advised by the CIA, that even now after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests"

Joseph McCarthy - ""I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."

Mark, I think your last to replies were about the most absurd and ignorant rants I have ever read here at B4B.
"we can't prosecute her while Bush is President, but the next President, if he's Republican (Democrats don't seem to have a mind to prosecute actual criminals), can indict her for perjury".
Where do you get this stuff?

"Even supposing she was covert and even supposing her name was deliberately leaked, there is still the fact that what the Administration was trying to do was debunk the lies of Joe Wilson...and, of course, she wasn't covert and her name wasn't leaked".
My God Mark, so you think its ok to leak classified intelligence if its to attack someone for political reasons?
Your nuts...

Lom,

You've fallen for the leftwing deception here - what was a use of national security issues for partisan, political advantage was then-Kerry advisor Joe Wilson writing a mendacious article in the NY Times, claiming to have de-bunked the President on the cause for the liberation of Iraq.

You on the left have the Plame affair entirely upside down...it was Wilson and Plame who lied; it was they who jeopardized national security for personal and partisan ends...Cheney et al were just trying to set the record straight.

tomjeff,

It has been a long established FACT that Plame was instrumental in getting Wilson the junket to Niger and it has been a long established FACT that she wasn't covert when her name first appeared in the press, courtesy of Richard Armitage, who wasn't even called to testify by Fitzgerald, even though Fitz knew within 24 hours that Armitage was the "leaker".

Plame can go before Congress all she wants and try to muddy the waters, but we already KNOW what happened.

Mark, what were Joe Wilson's lies in the NYT article?
Here maybe this will refresh your memory.

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

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.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Ed Note: If you're just going to come here and insult the authors, then we'd prefer you take you comments elsewhere. We don't work hard to put out free content just so we can have people insult us.

Lom,

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report - wrong answer: VP Cheney wasn't the person asking; Plame was, for reasons yet unknown.

The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger - wrong answer: his wife asked him.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau - wrong answer: he consulted only with his wife.

As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges. - wrong answer: This was Wilson's attempt to "prove" that he was right about Niger...the only trouble is that the President never relied upon those documents, and the British (whom he did rely upon) stand by their assertion that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium in Niger...gotta remember, Niger exports goats and uranium...when Saddam sent a trade mission there, do you think he was trying to buy goats?
The vice president's office asked a serious question. - wrong answer: Wilson could not have known if the VPs office asked the question at all.

I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. - wrong answer: notice how Wilson conflates his trip to Niger with the President assertion that Saddam had attempted to obtain uranium in Africa...these are two different subject, and Wilson is accusing President Bush of lying about something President Bush never asserted.

Lom,

What you need is a bit of discernment - this isn't hard. Wilson wrote his article AFTER he joined Kerry's camp and developed a vested interest in seeing President Bush lose in 2004. You've been flimflammed into believing what was really just a bunch of BS put out by Kerry's campaign...something long over with.

Mark,where is your proof that the Cia office and State Department's African Affairs Bureau were both her wife?
Where is documentation of this? Please enlighten all.
Thanks,
Lom

Mark I believe you believe your conspiracy theories as facts.
Show me some proof that this was all just a conspiracy by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Spook:

If Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the original leaker within a couple weeks of taking over the investigation, then I'd have to assume that the WH knew before that, and, if that's the case, what would there be to investigate?

So the question is: how did Plame end up in that State Department memo? How come her name and identity was so carelessly revealed to people who were not on a need-to-know basis? That's where the crime is. Libby's lies, false statements and obstructions of justice prevented that from coming to light.

From everything I read today, it's pretty clear that inside our government, security is not taken nearly as seriously as it was back in my day, and that's sad.

How true--I held the TSSI from 1977-78, and from 1983-95, and would've been fried for some of the violations/leaks which have occurred in our government. And the CIA isn't blameless when it comes to lax security. Hell, I've done some work at HQ, and been in rooms that weren't "sanitized" prior to my entry. And I could almost swear that I'd seen VPW in the cafeteria before--I wonder if she were a "covert" agent then, looking for WMD in the lunchroom...

Lom...et al..

This story pretty well sums up all that has been said or better stated not said about Armitage's role in the Plame case... all of which has been conveniently left out of the press in the past 24 hours and by Ms. Plame...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

The Man Who Said Too Much
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff

Specifcally......

"Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret."

and

""I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted"

lastly

"Bob Woodward has also said he was told of Plame's identity in June 2003. Woodward did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but, as late as last week, he referred reporters to his comments in November 2005 that he learned of her identity in a "casual and offhand" conversation with an administration official he declined to identify. According to three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the case and an Armitage confidant, all of whom would not be named discussing these details, Armitage told Woodward about Plame three weeks before talking to Novak. "

Point out of all this...

a) It was no secret Armitage wasn't a crony nor friend of the admin nor would he ever do their tidings..

b) Fitz knew all this..so if a crime had been committed he had the source and a person admitting to it... thus a prosecution or plea bargain would have been a slam dunk..

"It requires a prosecutor to establish the defendant's state of mind during the process, which can be a difficult threshold to prove in court." Gar

And yet you and other lefties have no problem reading the mind and intent of the WH staff to determine their state of mind as being malicious. Is that clairvoyance or wishful thinking.

All of you leftists evaluate the actions of the President and his staff through a prism which says to you: "Bush and his staff are evil". So you then concoct a scenario to fit YOUR mind set, not theirs.

I believe that, since FitzFong indicted noone for leaking the name of a "covert" agent, and went home, that this matter is closed and moot. Let Waxman have his hearings; let's have hearings over Executive powers; let's have, as Schumer has already gleefully promised, hearing after hearing after hearing. These BDS'ers want blood, because the legacy of Slicky Blue Dress is tainted.

Golf season starts next week for me--does anybody think I'll be fretting over these small potatoes while "pegging it up?"

And yet you and other lefties have no problem reading the mind and intent of the WH staff to determine their state of mind as being malicious. Is that clairvoyance or wishful thinking.

When someone of that WH staff has been found guilty of lying, making false statements and obstructing justice when trying to find out the truth? Why was he lying when he had nothing to hide? Why was he making false statements when his conscious was clear? Why was he obstructing justice if he believed there was no crime committed?

Golf season starts next week for me--does anybody think I'll be fretting over these small potatoes while "pegging it up?"
Posted by: God is Great--Libs I Hate... [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 17, 2007 11:54 AM

Spoken as a true Neocon. Only problem one of former Bush senior's ambassadors, Joe Wilson tried to stop Jr. from making a big mistake. With the unchecked lies about nuclear mushroom clouds the W.H. convinced the American people war with Iraq must occur. The lies cost us 3200 of our young people's lives and $500 billion. Now the Neocons want to repeat the same mistakes in Iran. They must be stopped. Please go golfing with your neocon buddies and let the remaining 72% of the American people take care of this.

Mark,

You stated in your update that you have Plame on 3 counts of perjury since she testified under oath. If you have the proof, please send it to Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), the ranking member of Waxman's committee.

U.S. House of Representatives
2348 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4611
Phone: (202) 225-1492
Fax: (202) 225-3071

The problem is that Gen. Hayden confirmed that Plame was under cover and that her employment was classified information. Whether she was technically "covert" under the IIPA is a moot point. It is still illegal to disclose classified information.

The fact that Armitage was the first person to disclose Plame's employment is also irrelevant. 1) We don't know if anyone in the White House knew that Armitage had told Woodward and 2) it wouldn't matter even if the White House knew. The first person to leak the information is not the only person who can be prosecuted. If you see a person get mugged can you then immediately mug the same person without being prosecuted? After all, the person had already been mugged.

Every time new evidence in this case appears or facts are discovered through testimony, the people here claim it is all lies. On the US Attorney firings you defend it by saying, "Clinton did it too!" knowing full well that is false. How far will you go to be apologists for this administration? When do you realize that you have compromised your Conservative principles for the sake of power? At what point do you realize that you have sacrificed your last shred of self respect?

What is outlined as criterion for the 1982 Intelligence Identity Act, doesn’t apply to Executive Order 12958. I am not surprised that Democrats would rely on the CIA’s director, Gen. Hayden’s determination of who is “covert” considering the Democrat’s absolute trust in the information provided by that agency in the past. They only use what serves their purpose and these hearings are controlled, what can be asked is narrowly defined. At the end of yesterday’s hearing, Waxman let Victoria Toensing know that due to her testimony, it may be “inaccurate” and it would be checked. Waxman earlier had proclaimed that Toensing was attempting to “narrowly define meaning of words to be creditable but not honest.” Waxman earlier admitted he wasn’t concerned what the intent of that Act was and was being honest, further eroding any chance of these hearings of ever being credible.

The LLL have managed to get this whole thing so twisted up it is hard to find your way back to the beginning---and they don't want to, because that would blow their lovely elaborate crystal-ball-based theories right out of the water. But there are some facts that, if laid out and evaluated, make Plame's whiny victimhood pretty transparent.

1. At one time Plame was evidently undercover, abroad---"covert"

2. She was brought home after her identity was revealed by Aldrich Ames. His revealing of her identity and covert status was the reason she could not work undercover abroad, and would be limited in any secret endeavor.

3. When she became involved with Joe Wilson, her boss told her that if she was going to date, much less marry, a member of the Ambassador Corps, she could not be undercover, and she agreed with this assessment. This was yet another reason, on top of the Ames treachery, for her inability to ever be truly covert again.

4. At least for some time she worked, without secrecy, as an analyst for the CIA. Many people knew this. Andrea Mitchell is on record as saying that the Washington Press Corps knew she worked "for" the CIA. Her husband talked about her working for the CIA.

5. Evidently at some time the CIA gave her an assignment to an undercover or secret or secretive operation, which was created to learn of the sale or transfer of certain dangerous materials. I understand her "cover" was to pretend to be the secretary of this fake company. There is ongong dispute regarding whether or not her position and its level of secrecy would qualify as truly "covert" or whether it was merely not for public knowledge.

6. Plame evidently was not very good at keeping secrets. She made public-record campaign contributions using her real name and giving the
"covert" operation as her employer. A very brief check of public records by Bob Novak brought this out, and a few more minutes on Lexis-Nexus showed that her "employer" didn't really exist, or at least had no address or phone number. That, combined with the common knowledge that she worked "for the CIA" would lead anyone with curiosity and a computer to conclude that she was involved in a secretive enterprise, albeit a rather clumsy and poorly organized one.

7. She chose to run the risk of being revealed publicy to the nation, as opposed to merely being known within certain circles, as an employee of SOME KIND of the CIA when she went along with her husband's decision to imply that Cheney had sent him to Niger, knowing that this would require the VP's office to look into the reason Wilson was chosen for this job so they could rebut the impression that Cheney had gone behind Bush's back to check up on him.

8. As a person involved in intelligence for many years, she had to know that anyone involved in a secretive operation, whether or not it qualifed as truly "covert", had to remain below the radar and not call attention to herself, yet she knew of and did not try to halt her husband's publicity-seeking grandtanding, based on lies, which were bound to call attention to him and the intermediary who recommended him for the trip to Niger. And even a novice would know that once it came out that it was his wife, not Cheney, who picked him for the job, it would be a requirement to go one step further to determine just how his wife was in a position to make such a recommendation. Therefore, she was reckless and acted in a manner which pretty much guaranteed her employment with the CIA would become public, and possibly her supposedly secret assignment as well--the secrecy of which was already compromised by her entering her fake company as her employer in public records, using her real name. Sounds to me like Val needed some refresher courses in "secret" and "covert".

9. As I recall, the article said Plame worked for the CIA, never identifying her as a covert agent or identifying the fake company that was supposed to be her cover. The comments I heard about her so-called covert status came from the Left, as they whined and shouted and beat their breasts over Valerie being "outed" and PUT IN DANGER and HAVING HER FAMILY'S LIVES PUT AT RISK. As if tapping an analyst to act as a secretary for a fake firm is the kind of thing that would put her life at risk if it were to become public.

10. The people who wrote the law covering the revealing of covert agents repeatedly stated that this action in no way fell under any of the conditions of that law.

11. There is one thing, and one thing ONLY, that makes the Lib hysteria have legs, and that is the assertion of knowledge of the MOTIVE for disclosing Plame's CIA employment. It is constantly repeated, as if a proven fact, that she was "outed" to "GET EVEN" with Wilson. Not that it was merely an effort to set the record straight about how Wilson ended up in Niger in the first place, a need CREATED BY THE WILSONS THEMSELVES when they decided to go public with a series of lies, but "REVENGE" It is patently silly to be able to claim intimate knowledge of another person's thoughts and emotions, though the LLL does it every day, but it the hook on which they hang their Outrage Hat.

And once they have accepted the REVENGE theory, they can of course explain that it was REVENGE for Wilson "discrediting the President". Though, of course, once the actual report he gave to the CIA on his trip was released it was clear that what he learned actually supported what the President had said----which is always ignored by the Left.

One version is that the Adminstration tried to DISCREDIT Wilson, in clear denial of the fact that Wilson discredited himself by being caught in a lie.

But the hysteria sure appealed to the hyper-emotional among you, those so filled with hate for Bush that any story, no matter how thin, no matter how silly, would be enough to rally you to become a torch-bearing pitchfork-waving rabble shouting for the heads of any Adminstration offical you could get hold of. And Fitzgerald read you well, and he delivered.

Joe and Val set this all in motion. He proved himself to be a liar, and she to be an inept "agent" at best and a reckless one to boot. Evidently these are characteristics that qualify people to be heroes of the Left.

Mark I believe you believe your conspiracy theories as facts.

Sure he does--that's how his entire worldview works. He even declared that he KNOWS the truth, facts be damned! His mind is made up, and the truth has absolutely no bearing on it. Remember Colbert's bit about how actual knowledge takes a backseat to "gut feelings?" Noonan exemplifies it perfectly.

Bear in mind, this is also a guy who is a creationist, believes we found WMDs in Iraq (and that WMDs somehow weren't the primary justification for invading Iraq), believes that "the left" is a centuries-old conspiracy theory meant to remove god from the world, believes that the press is in cahoots with the Democratic party to smear Republicans, and so on. The funny thing about the conspiracy mindset Noonan exhibits is that absence of proof of his point--not to mention the existence of proof that he is wrong--only fuels the conspiracy theory. Normal people revise their views according to the facts; Noonan just digs his heels in more.

But hey, it leads to a lot of laughs for those of us who know better.

Almiranta,

If what you say are facts then why won't Karl Rove go up the Hill and testify falsely before a Congressional committee and explain his role in the US Attorney firing scandal since doing so is clearly such a trivial matter?

We, Ourselves, think what you write here is what you would like to believe considering you have hitched your wagon to a blind horse and now you are afraid of the cliffs. Sad thing really. Alas as a judge of souls the only horse We ride are the best verifiable facts and the one glaring fact is that the Director of the CIA said Plame Wilson was a covert officer which lends far more credibility to her testimony under oath than any of your liberal hating rantings.

Care to bet on what happens next? Gonzales steps down to become the head of the George W bush Library? The John Dean who suffers even today at her job in the White House wishing to tell the truth finally becomes the 21st Century "Deep Throat"? What unseen horror could befall the Bush administration as it slowly melts down toward the inevitable conclusion. This is twice in many of your human lifetimes that an arrogant president has destroyed himself by being so self absorbed with his "legacy" that he tasked his operatives to act as if the Constitution and all other laws were for everyone but himself. What a pity America only has these short 22 months left to politically waterboard Terra's dumbest terrorists.

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

كوعول كودا برايديكس نيهيل!

"When someone of that WH staff has been found guilty of lying, making false statements and obstructing justice when trying to find out the truth? Why was he lying when he had nothing to hide? Why was he making false statements when his conscious was clear? Why was he obstructing justice if he believed there was no crime committed?" Wilhelmina the Orange

Good question! Were these false statements or just a faulty memory. Sure he was convicted in DC. A Republican can be convicted of almost anything by a DC jury. Didn't you hear the jury afterwards? They wanted Rove or Cheney...even though there was not crime. The crime was that Libby was a republican with a faulty memory.

But if his intent was malicious, proven by the false statements and obstruction of justice as you imply, then why was he not indicted and tried under the Act???

Either she wasn't covert and thus not covered, or his intentions weren't malicious. Which is it? you can't have it both ways which seems to be the tact you leftists are taking.

Last night I said Mark was paranoid and just to prove my point, he deleted my post. Said I was "insulting" him by asking questions he can't answer.
So he is a creationist, huh? Well, that makes perfect sense. Might as well go all the way!

Last night I said Mark was paranoid and just to prove my point, he deleted my post. Said I was "insulting" him by asking questions he can't answer.
So he is a creationist, huh? Well, that makes perfect sense. Might as well go all the way!

Almiranta,
1. At one time Plame was evidently undercover, abroad---"covert"

That is true, apparently as recently as 1997-1998.

2. She was brought home after her identity was revealed by Aldrich Ames. His revealing of her identity and covert status was the reason she could not work undercover abroad, and would be limited in any secret endeavor.

Since you were not working for the CIA in uncovering Ames, the reason you state is simply your opinion. From what I’ve read, the CIA developed two lists of names: Those they knew Ames revealed and those they thought Ames may have revealed. Plame may have been on the second list. However, Ames was caught in 1993 and Plame was still serving overseas 4-5 years later. She may have been recalled for a period while the CIA assessed whether or not she had been compromised, but the CIA apparently thought it was safe to put her back into the field.

3. When she became involved with Joe Wilson, her boss told her that if she was going to date, much less marry, a member of the Ambassador Corps, she could not be undercover, and she agreed with this assessment. This was yet another reason, on top of the Ames treachery, for her inability to ever be truly covert again.

Source? Also, she was married in 1998. I do not know the exact date, but it may have been within the five year window. It doesn’t really matter anyway. Just because the five years may have expired does not mean that her employment was no longer classified.

4. At least for some time she worked, without secrecy, as an analyst for the CIA. Many people knew this. Andrea Mitchell is on record as saying that the Washington Press Corps knew she worked "for" the CIA. Her husband talked about her working for the CIA.

Andrea Mitchell is also on record saying she misspoke and that she did not know Plame worked for the CIA, nor was Mitchell aware of anyone else who knew. Please provide the cite of her open employment with the CIA and of Joe Wilson discussing her employment prior to the Novak article being published. Quotes will do, but secondhand rumor is unacceptable.

5. Evidently at some time the CIA gave her an assignment to an undercover or secret or secretive operation, which was created to learn of the sale or transfer of certain dangerous materials. I understand her "cover" was to pretend to be the secretary of this fake company. There is ongong dispute regarding whether or not her position and its level of secrecy would qualify as truly "covert" or whether it was merely not for public knowledge.

I believe the debate is whether travelling overseas under cover qualifies under the IIPA as opposed to being stationed overseas. The question is not about the cover story.

6. Plame evidently was not very good at keeping secrets. She made public-record campaign contributions using her real name and giving the "covert" operation as her employer. A very brief check of public records by Bob Novak brought this out, and a few more minutes on Lexis-Nexus showed that her "employer" didn't really exist, or at least had no address or phone number. That, combined with the common knowledge that she worked "for the CIA" would lead anyone with curiosity and a computer to conclude that she was involved in a secretive enterprise, albeit a rather clumsy and poorly organized one.

1. Her name was not classified.
2. A cover is to be used at all times. It would be assinine to be under cover, but list the CIA as your employer on any public document.
3. Your claim that it was common knowledge that she worked for the CIA is not supported by the facts. See my response to #4.

7. She chose to run the risk of being revealed publicy to the nation, as opposed to merely being known within certain circles, as an employee of SOME KIND of the CIA when she went along with her husband's decision to imply that Cheney had sent him to Niger, knowing that this would require the VP's office to look into the reason Wilson was chosen for this job so they could rebut the impression that Cheney had gone behind Bush's back to check up on him.

This is pure speculation buoyed by a lack of facts. Wilson did not imply that Cheney sent him to Niger. If you go back and reread his article he said, “I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.” He did not say that Cheney sent him and what he did say is supported by the evidence. This all started because of a question that came from the Office of the Vice President, whether the VP knew it or not.

8. As a person involved in intelligence for many years, she had to know that anyone involved in a secretive operation, whether or not it qualifed as truly "covert", had to remain below the radar and not call attention to herself, yet she knew of and did not try to halt her husband's publicity-seeking grandtanding, based on lies, which were bound to call attention to him and the intermediary who recommended him for the trip to Niger. And even a novice would know that once it came out that it was his wife, not Cheney, who picked him for the job, it would be a requirement to go one step further to determine just how his wife was in a position to make such a recommendation. Therefore, she was reckless and acted in a manner which pretty much guaranteed her employment with the CIA would become public, and possibly her supposedly secret assignment as well--the secrecy of which was already compromised by her entering her fake company as her employer in public records, using her real name. Sounds to me like Val needed some refresher courses in "secret" and "covert".

This is pure rhetoric. Plame did not pick him or send him. Wilson never said that Cheney picked him. Novak did not do any investigative work to discover that she worked for the CIA. Rove and Fleischer told him where she worked and told him that she sent Wilson.

9. As I recall, the article said Plame worked for the CIA, never identifying her as a covert agent or identifying the fake company that was supposed to be her cover. The comments I heard about her so-called covert status came from the Left, as they whined and shouted and beat their breasts over Valerie being "outed" and PUT IN DANGER and HAVING HER FAMILY'S LIVES PUT AT RISK. As if tapping an analyst to act as a secretary for a fake firm is the kind of thing that would put her life at risk if it were to become public.

It may or may not put an agent’s life at risk to be outed. It depends on what they were doing and who they were spying on. What outing does do is destroy the networks that she was involved with. No one knows all of the places she has been stationed overseas. For the sake of argument, let’s assume she spent time in Iran while under cover. Once she was outed, what would the Iranian government do? I think they would round up everyone they could determine she had contact with and I’m willing to bet it wouldn’t be for a pleasant chat.

10. The people who wrote the law covering the revealing of covert agents repeatedly stated that this action in no way fell under any of the conditions of that law.

That’s Toensig’s opinion. Even if it doesn’t fall under the IIPA, her employment was still classified. That’s according to Gen. Hayden.

11. There is one thing, and one thing ONLY, that makes the Lib hysteria have legs, and that is the assertion of knowledge of the MOTIVE for disclosing Plame's CIA employment. It is constantly repeated, as if a proven fact, that she was "outed" to "GET EVEN" with Wilson. Not that it was merely an effort to set the record straight about how Wilson ended up in Niger in the first place, a need CREATED BY THE WILSONS THEMSELVES when they decided to go public with a series of lies, but "REVENGE" It is patently silly to be able to claim intimate knowledge of another person's thoughts and emotions, though the LLL does it every day, but it the hook on which they hang their Outrage Hat.

When people in the Administration lie about the facts of this case, it does call into question their motives. When the President says he takes leaking of classified information seriously and will have an internal investigation, but never conducts the investigation, it calls their motives into question. When the President says he will fire anyone involved, but no one is fired, it calls their motives into quaestion.

Finally, what are the “series of lies” in Wilson’s article? Identify them and provide your evidence to disprove them.

tomjeff - going right to insults and whining is a good way to ignore Almirantas excellent post and bury it in a few nonsense posts. Thanks.