Mr. Arkin, I have read a number of your blogs and I have one question for you...ARE YOU A TERRORIST OR COMMUNIST? I can't tell.

"Arkin's diatribe is no more pertinent than was the Cheney attack on Wilson and Plame in 2003."

None of Arkin's diatribes are pertinent. He's a crank and there is not a shred of original thought in anything he writes.

It seems paradoxical to call for the repeal of a law for something that you say it did not really forbid. To me it seems that Novak clearly acted intentionally and knowingly, and that the whole and entire point of what he did was to reveal something of a kind that governments generally wish to keep secret. Unless the journalist is sure that he is also exposing some great injustice by the government (s)he should not publish confidential information of this sort: it clearly leads at very least to the waste of the money invested in the person exposed and to inconvenience and trouble, if not worse, to foreigners who wished to cooperate with one's own government. Moreover, Plame's privileged appearance, and obvious contacts in high places, may have been just what would have led certain people to do business with her. I have read that the unpredictability of the American legal system is one of the factors behind the current decline of New York and rise of London. The fact that no prosecutions arose, except indirectly, out of this matter, may have been rather hard to predict. It certainly seems scandalous.

It seems paradoxical to call for the repeal of a law for something that you say it did not really forbid. To me it seems that Novak clearly acted intentionally and knowingly, and that the whole and entire point of what he did was to reveal something of a kind that governments generally wish to keep secret. Unless the journalist is sure that he is also exposing some great injustice by the government (s)he should not publish confidential information of this sort: it clearly leads at very least to the waste of the money invested in the person exposed and to inconvenience and trouble, if not worse, to foreigners who wished to cooperate with one's own government. Moreover, Plame's privileged appearance, and obvious contacts in high places, may have been just what would have led certain people to do business with her. I have read that the unpredictability of the American legal system is one of the factors behind the current decline of New York and rise of London. The fact that no prosecutions arose, except indirectly, out of this matter, may have been rather hard to predict. It certainly seems scandalous.

Dave,

What difference does any of what you stated make? It makes none. It does not change a single fact of what happened with in the eyes of the law. You and Bush & Co, are just putting political spin on the outing of a covert CIA operative. The only relevant facts are; was she covert and what persons revealed her as being covert. Yes, she was covert and multiple members of the administration revealed her identity in what appears to be a coordinated effort. The mission from beginning to end was officially approved by the Bush & Co.. But just like the firing of the eight federal prosecutors; Bush & Co. wanted to persecute and make examples of those who disagreed with them, even individuals who were doing honest nonpolitical work.
DC

Jane,
The old truism in politics and life applies here - its not what you know its who you know. To think that Wilson's trip happened without input, coordination, prompting, agreement, consultation or information from Plame just does not pass the laugh test. Her job IS contacts and information brokering. Now it is true that Wilson had prior experience there and that picking someone to go that had experience there is simply logical. But you have little sense of how Washington works if you believe that that Plame was not intimately involved in the trip.
Posted by: Dave!

Posted by: Jane | March 21, 2007 12:45 PM

"... I mean, seriously, people, I am utterly amazed how little correct information people actually have before they comment."

Actually, Jane, what amazes me is how utterly unwilling people are to consider their own opinions despite having more and correct information. I understand politics today has become a "win at all costs" competition, but I'm greatly disheartened by the depths to this same attitude permeates our collective way of thought. When it comes to discussion about ideas and issues, it appears people don't even TRY to understand an alternate perspective anymore. Whatever happened to "I understand, but disagree"?

Ihonestly don't care if Valerie Plame's job was sweeping out the place. For me, the important question isn't whether Bush and his pitiful little gang of adoring harpies broke some obscure law involving the release of classified information that even opur best legal minds agree needs to be made less ambiguous. The real question here involves the bill of goods we were sold when this motley crew of dingos moved into the White House. I remember all of the moral wheezing about how they intended to scrub down the walls of the White House. That this would be a Presidency that that was led by a straight shooter who would have a far higher standard than simply walking right up to the line marked by the rule of law. The bill of goods we were sold was that this administration would be one of the most ethicasl in history and that the word had gone out that all of the sort of chicanery that went on in the Clinton administration was not going to be tolerated in the new one.

Now, just listen to Bush's SS-like supporters on the right as they defend his every embarassing FUBAR. First, they reflexively blame the liberal media--that tried-and-true old favorite they always raise when a conservative steps in the big one. Then, on yet another favorite reflex, they justify Bush's smelliness with the old saw that Clinton smelled worse.

This from the administration that said it was going to be the antithesis of the hated Clinton. Isn't it odd that now Clinton is their one salvation in their sorry, silly attempt to salvadge the worthless reputation of George W. Bush.

Maddog56,
Blabbing the activities of the CIA to the enemies of the US is NEVER "doing the right thing", especially when you do it because you want some of the spotlight on yourself. That fact that people consider this treasonist act as honorable is a sad, sad commentary on how far this country has fallen.

Jane,
The old truism in politics and life applies here - its not what you know its who you know. To think that Wilson's trip happened without input, coordination, prompting, agreement, consultation or information from Plame just does not pass the laugh test. Her job IS contacts and information brokering. Now it is true that Wilson had prior experience there and that picking someone to go that had experience there is simply logical. But you have little sense of how Washington works if you believe that that Plame was not intimately involved in the trip.

what a sad sad circus...they need to fire bunches more people, apparently...should they outsource to China?

Damn! I had to read through a lot of posts, many of which made little sense and seemed to miss the point of why Wilson was sent. Finally, a glimmer of hope. _Jane_ got it right. Wilson knew the people there, probably had many contacts he could trust. And he knew who not to trust. Well done, Wilson! Unfortunately, your work did not keep us out of the Iraq quagmire. Outing Plame was just punishment for doing the right thing...doing the right thing or telling the uncomfortable truth is not permitted in this administration. Never have I seen such petty, vindictive people as are now running the show in DC. Bush is as petulant as any spoiled child--whines endlessly when he does not get what he wants. Then blames others when his plans go awry and they always do. IMPEACH BUSH.

Posted by: Jane | March 21, 2007 12:45 PM

"For all of those who don't seem to understand why he was sent to Niger...Ambassador Wilson was part of a diplomatic contingent stationed there in the past. In addition, he has extensive African diplomatic experience (shockingly, I know, but all BEFORE his marriage). It seems to make sense that if you are going to send someone to Niger to make contacts and confirm information, you send someone who already has been stationed there. It might be slightly problematic to send some random person who would not understand how to cut through Niger's bureaucratic red tape. All administrations have a tendency to do this...pick prior diplomats to conduct a mission to their old stomping grounds. It's not exactly a leap that someone at the CIA would have made this connection and chosen Mr. Wilson without his wife's input. I mean, seriously, people, I am utterly amazed how little correct information people actually have before they comment."

You know, folks, nobody has ever been prosecuted or even accused of disclosing the employment of Plame. The case was based on "Scooter" giving false testimony while under oath. (now, the Administration has wised up and is offering only non-sworn testimony by top officials). The editorial is written so poorly that it is hard to understand what is the point. I am taking no sides on an argument so poorly put forward. Nevertheless, the case really started as a result of the lying of the Bush Administration officials regarding why we needed to attack a country the was unable to do any harm to the USA or anyone else. This had been proven in the earlier Gulf War when a real alliance was formed to put Saddam Hussein back in his box. At least that alliance had great leadership and understood the real threat of Hussein's Iraq and the unnecessary and unwise need to occupy that country.

how funny....when lefty moonbats can call Bill "Mercenaries is what's they be!" Arkin as a tool of the rightwing Chimpy McHaliBu$Hrovian regime you know you there's no hope left for the Dems.

Christ, thank god they believe in infanticide.

Oh, good show! You have again validated my previous observations of right-wing apologists. Blame it on Clinton. Blame it on Jimmy Carter. (See 'The Bush Sequence' at lexicosm.com). It took you only until the 19th paragraph to get around to that. Of course, to blame Jimmy Carter is to ignore 12 years of Reagan and George the First during which any perceived shortcomings in CIA funding could have been erased with the stroke of a pen. But those fellows were too busy trading guns and drugs and making deals with third-world dictators for the benefit of their fellow capitalist oligarchs.

Looks like some people think they are above the law. In the Clinton Administration over thirty members of his staff had to testify under oath to a Republican controlled congress. But a Republican President thinks he and his staff should never testify under oath to democratically controlled congress? This seems very un-American to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors

"Democrats said their action gave them a bargaining chip in negotiations with Bush. The White House has said the aides would provide only limited interviews with select lawmakers behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath."

Wilson tried the proper way and it didn't work. Then to the contrary of what Wilson found, Bush delivers a speech stating the opposite. Wilson saw a president bent on misleading the American public and did his patriotic duty in exposing the bush lie. No need debating this Dave, history has proven Wilson right and Bush wrong, nothing will change that. Wilson was correct in his "beliefs" and Bush was wrong. Dave, you need to remember today's date and stop living in the pre Iraq Invasion days. Continuing to argue this point only exposes you as a neocon partisan hack.

"I think Wilson is being honest with his beliefs. But there are other, more proper, ways to voice your objections than the NYT editorial page. That is not somethink a hero does. Someone looking for a book deal maybe, but not a hero.
Posted by: Dave!"

Is
The Brits and others still maintain from their own intel that there is some credible evidence there. Wilson went on his CIA trip and "spent ... 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" while telling everyone that he was making it "abundantly clear ...that I was acting on behalf of the United States government". His wife, not him, is the one that is trained in gathering intel. And amazingly he found no evidence. So why should he be the final and only word on the matter? He's not - just the loudest. He is, however, telling the world about the activities of the CIA. And helping to out his wife just to get face time on CNN. So Bush had reports from several other countries and, including Wilson's views, had conflicting reports from the CIA. Being the perfect science intellegence gathering is and given the nature of the threat (nuclear weapons in Saddams hands), I'm having a hard time losing sleep over Bushs' statement on the matter. Telling your enemies about how the CIA works does not make you a hero. I think Wilson is being honest with his beliefs. But there are other, more proper, ways to voice your objections than the NYT editorial page. That is not somethink a hero does. Someone looking for a book deal maybe, but not a hero.

Nothing personal Dave, but is the color of the sky in your world red? There is nothing more treasonous to the American people and the Constitution than lying to the American people to invade another country as Bush & Co. did. Joe Wilson is a hero; bush is a traitor and should be impeached.

Posted by Dave:

"I think that anybody saying they work for the CIA or publicizing that they were undertaking a "discreet" mission for the CIA, as Joe Wilson put it, should be prosecuted. Not only do i think that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act should be strengthened, i think that CIA leakers should be brought up on treason charges. Harsh you ask?"

I think that anybody saying they work for the CIA or publicizing that they were undertaking a "discreet" mission for the CIA, as Joe Wilson put it, should be prosecuted. Not only do i think that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act should be strengthened, i think that CIA leakers should be brought up on treason charges. Harsh you ask? You bet. Plame and especially Wilson (who started the ball rolling with his "i want to be important" article in the NYT) should be in jail. Wilson should be because he blabbed about working for the CIA. Plame should be because she won't shut up about things and because she married a narcissistic partisan idiot. Novak should be because he wrote that she was a CIA operative, telling the world in plain english if they were not intellegent enough to put it together from Wilson's article. See, the thing is, if you are going to have an agency that deals in covert activity, that activity should remain covert. When you have people trying to make a career by writing editorials in newspapers talking about the things that the CIA does (knowing that one of the things they do is employ your wife), that really defeats the general idea of covert. Give the CIA the cover, the money and the laws necessary to be successful and trust that your elected officials do their job and provide oversight. Accept that there will be wasted money (as there is in all government agencies). Or we can take the Carter approach and get rid of human intellegence and continue to be surprised by world events.

Plame was employed by Brewster-Jennings, an accounting firm deployed by the CIA fifty years ago. The company was engaged in auditing contracts for state owned oil companies like Aramco and possibly the Iranian state oil company. The auditing of oil reserves world wide is a matter of national security. This is a real loss. The case could be made that whoever is behind the outing of Valerie Plame is an enemy of the USA. Cui bono?

Wow. Arkin is incredibly naive or he watches too many Bond movies. Ultimately, he is saying Plame couldn't possibly meet with agents because she's blond and a wife of an ambassador. Let's forget cellphones, coded messages, internet cafes or the myriad of other ways people pass information today. I guess a covert agent in a secure environment, with the capability of coordinating information gathering under a very easily explained cover in the Middle East, would never be useful. Arkin, please don't breed.

Let's all step back for a moment...

and just consider what weould be feeling if any one of us worked for any one of America's intelligence organizations.

We should not play politics with this issue, rather we should do whatever it takes to protect those individuals who work in intelligence; we must make THEM feel secure.

Some in the intelligence community are outraged and are not feeling very confident at this point knowing that they can be outed or ousted for political reasons. Only the strictest enforcement of the Law will help them to feel secure in serving their country. Many American citizens have had their private information compromised given identity theft for example, and we know how that upsets us.

What the President 'formerly known as, did, may or may not be legally wrong, however, it certainly was ethically and morally wrong. A responsible leader would protect the confidentially of those who serve under him, even when trying to debunk a story that disagreed with his position.

Unfortunately that is nothing new for the current administration in Washington DC, is it?

The real question is whether or not O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown-Simpson(-:>

The Rev has been traveling for the last 2.5 weeks. I miss fighting with you guys.

And we all know that whatever is wrong in America is the fault of the Democrats.

God Help America!

I guess the WaPo is putting on the full court press in defense of Novak. Your racist comments are a lame effort to belittle Ms Plame. And yes you are right to state that you are no intelligence expert. This article also demonstrates your lack of expertise in the area of journalistic intelligence.

Not since Nixon, have we had such an abusive executive branch.
Nor since Nixon, have we had one that acted more to protect a secret of the executive and less on behalf of the people. (and given his father, Reagan, and Clinton that is saying quite a lot.)
Mrs. Wilson is an example of what this administration can do.
The question I have not heard, and the one that scares me to being awake, is this. "If they can out her, a fairly safe bet she isn't going to get killed secretly. How many people have they had killed in secret?"
You want to be fair, this was a woman who worked, at the very least, as a SPOOK! She spied. She, by all indications had the stuff to continue doing it.
Our President, and his staff at the absolute least should own that responsibility.
But I want something more, I would like the absolute sworn testimony(under oath) that at no time has an intelligence asset been killed due to an unknown to the public leak.
See my problem is that I can't buy for one second that if these folks are willing to do this to the wife of a US Ambassador, believe they wouldn't do it to a lonely guy out in the field that has outlived his usefulness.
How many have been cut?
How many stars have been added to the wall in Langely?
How many haven't even made the wall?
We loose intelligence every single day because people don't trust us. (they actually trust the other side more.....think about that for a second.)
No you want to defend what happened by this administration, you go right ahead, but my money is on the fact that the next time someone has information to sell it won't come our way. (Britian might get it and we might get it backdoored to us, but as for human intelligence this flat hurt our abilities to recruit and maintain assets that we already had.)
I don't care who said what to whom.
Her name was not know prior to this whole ordeal.
Now it is.
Anyone that wants to dilude themselves into thinking that this is a matter about what status she had (secret, covert..etc.) go ahead.
The real issue will remain, however, the deep hurt this puts on our credibility and our ability to recruit.

The unforeseen consequences went with their assumptions. I don't make assumptions. But, I must confess the sheer scale of the violence exceeded my expectations.

Arkin's diatribe is no more pertinent than was the Cheney attack on Wilson and Plame in 2003. He may have had a point to make about the stupidity of the secrecy in which the CIA is allowed to operate but he lost his case before he presented it by resorting to unsupported invective about Plame. This blog is Rush Limbaugh logic in a Limbaugh format--I know of no more insulting way to put it. Arkin should feel ashamed.

Good one George. Quoting Nixon to support Arkin's claim that Plame was not what she swore under oath she was at CIA. And CIA backs up her version of her status, not BushCo's Rove-created Novak-maligned Libby-spread version of her status. But lying was just part of the job for Nixon, a man you obviously admire.

Excellent article on perceived CIA shortcomings. Valerie Plame strikes me as the epitome of these flaws, as your article points out. It's typical of the Federal government as a whole. It's not that the managers in the Federal government are unintelligent, but they tend to hire people just like themselves- handsome (or beautiful), well spoken, methodical and non-controversial. In the real world, people are sometimes ill-mannered, less-than-spectacular in their personal appearance, and operate with sudden flashes of insight rather than always being so methodical and dependable. It's like Richard Nixon's perceptive comment that the country would be better served by hiring people from University of Oklahoma rather than Harvard.

In his article, Mr. Arkin admits "Now I'm no lawyer" -- too bad he didn't also feel compelled to comment on his expertise in the field of intelligence. Unfortunately because much of the information essential to establishing expertise in the latter is classified any ass can write about it with little fear of being embarassed by those who know better.

PJ Casey wrote:
---The Bush Administration went to war based on assumptions and not facts, and now we face the unforeseen consequences of their actions.---

Much of what has happened in Iraq and continues to this day was forseen by many. The sectarian conflicts in particular as well as removing Iran's main rival which boosted Iran and allowed it into Iraq. Those who did forsee what we have today were fired, forced to resign and otherwise prevented from talking. And now we see that US attorneys who do not ignore republican law breaking are to be sacked as well. Not since Henry VIII has there been this much bloodletting so those who remain in their jobs will agree with the king.

For all of those who don't seem to understand why he was sent to Niger...Ambassador Wilson was part of a diplomatic contingent stationed there in the past. In addition, he has extensive African diplomatic experience (shockingly, I know, but all BEFORE his marriage). It seems to make sense that if you are going to send someone to Niger to make contacts and confirm information, you send someone who already has been stationed there. It might be slightly problematic to send some random person who would not understand how to cut through Niger's bureaucratic red tape. All administrations have a tendency to do this...pick prior diplomats to conduct a mission to their old stomping grounds. It's not exactly a leap that someone at the CIA would have made this connection and chosen Mr. Wilson without his wife's input. I mean, seriously, people, I am utterly amazed how little correct information people actually have before they comment.

I am not for or against the CIA or any intelligence service in the government. As with any organization, I am sure they have good and bad people. If they behave in a responsible manner, they have my support. If they are not reponsible, and overthrow governments for United Fruit, as in Guatemala, or some other multinational private interest, I would be on their case. If they are dealing with real threats to the United States, they have my full backing.
It is in our national interest to keep track of WMD, or to be more specific Nuclear weapons, we need to know who has them, and if they pose a threat. Plame was out in the cold, without a net, keeping track of these things. I would call that covert, and I would call it treason to break her cover.
Wilson was the third person to give a negative report about Yellow Cake going from Niger to Iraq. He was the temporary Ambassador to Iraq before the 1st Gulf War, but he was also an African Specialist who spent most of his career there. He was very close to the foreign policy team of the first President Bush, and The CIA probably thought Wilson's report would carry some weight with the son.
But the Bush Administration did not want facts, they wanted a reason to go to war with or without facts. They wanted to punish Wilson by outing his wife, and warn anybody who didn't go along with their programs, that they would face the same fate.
The Bush Administration went to war based on assumptions and not facts, and now we face the unforeseen consequences of their actions.

Jaxas wrote:
---Just substitute any of a number of democrats who might be President and who might have made precisely the same decisions that Bush made and ask yourself if the democrats and the GOP would be having the same positions they now cling so passionately to.---

Of course they wouldn't. Republicans live by a permanent double standard and an "us versus them" mentality with survival at stake so they do "whatever it takes". The GOP are idiots who make any argument, tell any lie, push any distortion they want to gain political points. There is no patriotism behind any of their statements. Just look at where the fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets argument the Republicans bludgened Clinton with have gone.

I guess someone will say democrats do this as well but I have not seen the distortions and lies at the high level the republicans have been using them nor the willingness to destroy this nation for political reasons. The current republicans in power have broken laws, lied to the American people and have not done their due diligence in protecting the information and security of this country. Its treasoneus and worse than Nixon.

I find all of this back and forth highly amusing because I believe that the vast majority of people expressing opinions here are highly partisan people who would have completely opposite opinions based on the political persuasion of the person occupying the Oval Office.

Look. I don't make this charge lightly. But, I distincly remember the right being on the other side of a whole goblolley of issues when Bill Clinton was President. If Clinton had divulged the name of a person working in the CIA who was the wife of a Republican Ambassador sent to investigate the veracity of some 16 word statement that he made in a State of the Union address, and if that Republican Ambassador had written a column in the NYT accusing President Clinton of distorting intelligence, and if in reataliation for that editorial, Clinton sent his henchmen out to release infromation about that ambassador's position at the CIA to try and intimidate him, would anyone out there seriously entertain the ludicrous proposition that the political right would be siding with President Clinton?

Ditto on the Iraq war. Just substitute any of a number of democrats who might be President and who might have made precisely the same decisions that Bush made and ask yourself if the democrats and the GOP would be having the same positions they now cling so passionately to.

maddog56,

I think you said it in the fewest words; "they did get things right". Of the Iraq War Fiasco, from cradle to unknown grave. The Wilson's are just about the only two to get it right from the Intel Community. Yet from the beginning and now from Arkin, they are still being attacked for being correct. I'll add this to maddog56's statement, Arkin did not get it correct in the beginning on Intel., could this be the motivation for his attack on Valerie Plame?

Mr. Arkin,

In the interest of fair and equal journalism are you going to stop this topic with this one article or are you going to approach the other side of this story Karl Rove, Dick Cheney....?

DC

Maddog56,

"Plame and Wilson were two of many players in our intell chess game, but they did get things right. I'd suggest that we get rid of the CIA and NSA, along with other intell organizations, but it appears we need them to keep our own government honest and in check. Expect Bush to continue to refuse to cooperate in any probes having to do with his administration...this statement is focused on the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys as well as the apparent attempt to fire all 93 ( an odd point in his adminstration to do this, although I contend George Bush will_not_ leave office at the end of the term ); Bush will stonewall on the outing of Plame just as he has done with every other crisis in his administration. Eventually, the problems evaporate with the American people losing interest. The Walter Reed disaster is already off the front pages. We no longer consider extraordinary rendition a problem ( it still goes on ), wiretapping is not longer an issue. The national debt will continue to go through the roof. He ignores the will of the people, the advice of his military advisors, and of his Chiefs of Staff. The American people wanted Bush, they got Bush, and now they are paying the price for a psychotic individual. Unfortunately, so am I.

Posted by: maddog56"

I have spent many foreign nights talking with intelligence agents retired and active. It seems the problem of compartmentalization necessary in this profession based on deception and honor allows pshchological deviants and others with agendas to commander the power of the state for their own use. This is a difficult problem which oversight will not solve. This people are expert in the use of bribery, blackmail, and assassination.
They are dangerous. The only solution I see is to cut much of the black budget funding and keep a necessary evil to a minimum.

Every valuable government agent has to start somewhere. She had an exciting future before her, but now that is all gone. Maybe Ms. Plame would have gone on to do great things, say if her husband were to once again become a U.S. ambassador. Why would you be so cruel to judge her incompetent when her true worth and, in fact, the details of how CIA spy operations actually work are not well known to the public (including, I assume, to YOU)?

A sorrier piece of journalism I have never read. You focus on Plame's blondness, sex and good looks and use it against her. Her qualifications, her work, her ability and our nations loss of that are not mentioned by you. You do not mention the conspiracy of hate this administration had in exposing her, not for anything she did, but for what her husband did. And lets not forget who her husband is. He was the American ambassador to Iraq that faced down Saddam Hussain when he was threatening to kill Americans in Iraq. A real patriot, a man you could not understand.

The CIA certainly needs oversight and we have Congress to do that, and thanks to the recent election, a competent one. CIA operatives put themselves and those they work with into dangerous positions while doing their job. They deserve laws that protect their identities to reduce the danger they and their contacts live with. But you Mr. Arkin have never shown those who put their lives on the line for this country anything but contempt. Maybe you should volunteer to go to Pakistan acting as a rug dealer to help find Osama. I promise I won't tell anyone what you are doing. But I doubt you'd do that or anything that would protect this country if it meant putting yourself in any danger. There are names for people like you.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Donations needed to help pay for new computer
We ask those of you who can to please make a secure credit card donation or if you prefer to send a check or money order, email editor@onlinejournal.com for a mailing address. We need to raise $1,900 by April 5 to cover our outlay. Your help is greatly appreciated.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe

By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link.

"We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution," he wrote. "This remains the case and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise."

But the revelation is sure to heighten demands in Congress for a full investigation into whether something other than job performance was behind the Justice Department's dismissals late last year of eight U.S. attorneys, including Lam.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he intends to force President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, to testify and will insist that the testimony be under oath. Leahy, who appeared on ABC's "This Week," said he is "sick and tired" of the administration's changing rationale for the firings.

Justice Department officials originally told Congress that the U.S. attorneys had been dismissed for poor performance. But since it's become known that most of the attorneys received positive job evaluations.

Last week, the Justice Department released e-mails showing that loyalty to President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was among the criteria used to judge U.S. attorneys' performance and that Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers were deeply involved in discussions leading up to the dismissals.

Roehrkasse said the Justice Department would provide additional e-mails to Congress on Monday. The documents were to have been surrendered last week, but Justice officials delayed the delivery, saying they needed more time to prepare them.

In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Feinstein said she'd not yet decided what motivated Lam's dismissal.

"There were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," Feinstein said. "The attorney general has said he did not know what was going on ... that is very difficult for me to believe."

Feinstein said Lam notified the Justice Department on May 10, 2006, that she planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, who'd resigned two days earlier as the No. 3 official at the CIA.

On May 11, 2006, Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of staff, sent an e-mail to deputy White House counsel William Kelley, asking Kelley to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

The e-mail did not spell out what the "real problem" was, and it was unclear whether Kelley and Sampson talked later.

Until now, lawmakers have focused on two of Lam's other inquiries into Republicans as possible ways in which she may have chafed the administration.

Lam oversaw the investigation that led to the corruption conviction of then-Rep.

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

I expected better of you , Mr. Arkin. The complete lack of outrage on the part of the Post in this betrayal of a CIA agent is befuddling to me. Woodward, Hiatt, Kaiser, and now you, all seem willing to minimize the significance of this breach. Surely the CIA deserves high levels of skepticism, but if any mission is legitimate, it is counterproliferation. And surely government insiders such as Armitage and Libby knew that Plame's division was largely classified and covert. They knew it and they betrayed it. And I don't care that Armitage is -quote- no partisan gunslinger -unquote-. That does not make him perfect, nor does it put him above politics all the time. I read an account of his conversation with Woodward, and he seemed quite intent on getting Plame's name in the news. Disturbingly so.

When my crowd were talking to Plame, not so long ago, we didn't have any problem assessing her intelligence.

The information on chlorine gas threats was indeed interesting and well presented.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

How is it that someone so transparently cynical and lacking in judgement as yourself has the gall to belittle the contributions of those who served their country honorably under difficult circumstances. Your allusion to Ms Valerie Plame as "white, blond, coutured" is gratituously insulting and deliberately sexist. Why don't you get off your high perch and stop throwing bricks on public servants who sacrificed their lives and well-being in guarding our freedoms. In writing this tract, a little humility and appreciation on your part would have been the most appropriate gesture.

You owe an apology to Ms. Plame!

I don't agree with you that the law should be repealed. As some of your other interlocutors have already noted, you really did blow it on this one. Revealing Plames Identity was a bad thing, and they did it for the worst of reasons.

The National Security Crowd have always had a mix of legitimate mission, real enemies, and fruitcakes; and a tendancy to not be able to recognize which ones are which. This goes back to when VanDeman became a hero on the right for keeping lists of suspected "Reds" that just happened to include nearly anyone who was Jewish or Black -- and the entire Roosevelt and Truman Administrations. Later it turned out that the Soviets were paying some folks on the left and that they kept track of those folks too. There really are fruitcakes on the left too.

Given the behavior of the far left, the far right is probably somewhat justified in their paranoia. But to us in the middle it doesn't matter whether it is the Weather Underground (left), the Red Brigades -- or Neo Nazis and Timothy McVeigh planting the bombs. The only thing that differs is some of the primary targets. But in this country, the odds of someone on the right fomenting major trouble are greater -- simply because the far Right has more bullies, money, and opportunity here than the far left does.

The next problem is that the fields of law enforcement and security tend to attract a disproportionate proportion of particularly nationalistic, patriotic, and often fanatically swayed by the right; individuals who tend to be at war not just with people who want to overthrow the Government, but with Democrats and people who simply want to reform, change, or improve the government.

I think some very simple changes in national security law could vastly improve things:
1. Make it a crime to use the Classification system to cover up a crime.
2. Make it a breach of security to classify a crime punishable by permanent loss of access to secrets or government employment either as a Civilian or a Contractor.
3. Put the review of classified materials into the hands of a disinterested 3rd party except a very narrow realm of such things (People and programs under cover, connections to people at risk if revealed, nukes, that sort of thing). And require that "ordinary secrets" be declassified after their original classification purpose has expired.
4. Make it illegal to classify something that is already in the public domain.
5. Require that classification assign a "risk" to the value of the classification. If the risk is low declassify it quickly after the expiration date. [Example when a train has gone by, it is okay to declassify that it had something sensitive on it -- unless that will review a regular program].

Plame and Wilson were two of many players in our intell chess game, but they did get things right. I'd suggest that we get rid of the CIA and NSA, along with other intell organizations, but it appears we need them to keep our own government honest and in check. Expect Bush to continue to refuse to cooperate in any probes having to do with his administration...this statement is focused on the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys as well as the apparent attempt to fire all 93 ( an odd point in his adminstration to do this, although I contend George Bush will_not_ leave office at the end of the term ); Bush will stonewall on the outing of Plame just as he has done with every other crisis in his administration. Eventually, the problems evaporate with the American people losing interest. The Walter Reed disaster is already off the front pages. We no longer consider extraordinary rendition a problem ( it still goes on ), wiretapping is not longer an issue. The national debt will continue to go through the roof. He ignores the will of the people, the advice of his military advisors, and of his Chiefs of Staff. The American people wanted Bush, they got Bush, and now they are paying the price for a psychotic individual. Unfortunately, so am I.

Wow. So it turns out that Saddam Hussein really did try to get yellowcake uranium from Africa! And the Iraq War isn't a complete disaster, trumped up by wildly misguided chickenhawk neocons! It's a good and virtuous war no matter what the blonde Mrs. Wilsoon says.

Thanks for straightening this out for us, Mr. Arkin. That's some hard-hitting journalism your conducting there. Kudos.

Wow, so you pretty much hit on all the negative dumb blonde stereotypes here...figures coming from a typical male like yourself, sounds very chauvinistic. Plus funny how the Post reminds its commenters here to refrain from "personal attacks" yet somehow the (double) standard doesn't apply to columnists such as yourself. Last I checked "nincompoop" was not a flattering word choice to describe someone and would certainly be considered a personal attack. I guess the word I'm thinking of to accurately describe the Compost and people like yourself is hypocrit.

Please enough of the continued Compost campaign of Wilson bashing with the childish smearing and name calling. Aren't there more important things you could write about, like say who did forge those Niger Documents and why? You've already ruined your reputation and credibility, or don't you feel you've lowered your standards low enough these days.

It seems that in your world, only brown-skinned Asians can be enemies. While I am sure her meeting with a Pakistani general would raise doubts, have you ever considered that a blond woman could be a covert operative in other parts of the world? I dont know, maybe in countries with which the US has fought wars for over 50 years?

Mr. Arkin,

Your suggestion that we have oversight into the actual covers used and the money spent on specific activities is terrible. Any information made public gives power to those who shouldn't have it. Please think through your arguments in the future. Your comments are reckless, and would certainly endanger people.

If it were your ass on the line you would be screaming for legislative protection more stringent that provided in current law. I hope there is a retired operative with old fashioned ideas about getting even when members of the agency have been compromised by scum like Novak and all those who appologise for his act of treason.

As suspicious as I am of the CIA and its often disgusting past, I think reporters ought to have some facts before they print assertions about the duties of a particular agent. I would hate to be on the Arkin's side when it comes out, possibly in Plame's lawsuit against officials, that she was an important covert officer. When did Arkin become an expert on the activities of invidual agents?

Apparently only our government thought Plame's identity was some covert secret. My understanding is she'd been ousted years earlier by other governments and they knew her to be a low level operative.

Mr. Arkin,

I would hate to see you as a judge in a rape case. You would blame the victim for being a woman, put her in jail, and let the rapist walk free.

It is beyond belief what you were thinking when you wrote this article, unless it was to stay in favor with some neocons in the military, hope you made them happy. It was at your expense.

Could a friend of Arkin bother to show him a copy of --The New Pearl Harbor--? Bush did 9-11. Mineta witnessed the Cheney standown order, and testified to it. We all witnessed the first three skyscrapers in history to collapse from fire...with explosive-s squibs and plumes to boot...and the Pentagon...unconcerned with the absence of an airplane...or the curiously coincidental jet swooping up over the Capitol just as the concussion from the missile hit reached Congress? And the oddly delayed response by the closet-queen draft-dodger-in-chief in Florida? Any Americans out there? Vets? Sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies...domestic as well? What a coincidence Jeff Gannon-s consort's father can-t recall his whereabouts upon hearing of JFK-s murder...nor could his Hitler-financing grandfather-s-protege Nixon. Wake up, America. Put them to trial and usher in a new Golden Age.

Arkin, you should enlist and head for Iraq. You're logic is perverted and your loyalty to this administration's criminal deeds is ridiculous. But I can probably guess your motives.

Thanks for your column. How do we hold our government accountable when so many of the basic facts are classified, or based upon (often unreliable) intelligence?

Please continue to speak your mind in the service of making us more informed citizens. Most Americans don't have a clue about defense issues and I wish the Post had five more of you!

How does Mr. Arkin profess to know Ms. Plame's every professional accomplishment? She's a trained intell officer! She's not going to announce her life story to the world just because someone decided to broadcast part of that story to the universe.

Why is there such a focus on legalities? What about doing the right thing?

Mr. Arkin might be suprised, but intell officers male, female, blond, brunette, and perhaps even several red heads go to dangerous places where cocktail parties are interrupted by explosions and gunfire, and are in some cases only protected by their wits and training. And yes, they make it look easy and like one big party because that is how they maintain a semblance of cover....That apparently they have to do a better job at since top official in their own government are outing them!

Mr. Arkin is the exact kind of person an intell officer would want to approach and manipulate because of his pre-concieved notions about what type of folks are good at this field.

And oh yeah, probably Plame used discretion when meeting some of these folks...Just a hunch -- she probably did not go to the town square with a big sign that reads "Spooky Meeting in Progress." She probably didn't ask her contact out on a "date" to your local Pizza Hut.

The very reason that Mr. Arkin underestimates her (preconcieved notions about what attractive females can accomplish) is why a lot of other folks probably underestimated her too and were more likely to see her as a friendly social contact that they could confide in about a number of topics.

It is funny to me that Mr. Arkin is trying to exonerate Rove, Libby et al by making the female victim a villain. I thought that kind of behavior was only on bad Lifetime re-run movies from the early 1980's that run on Saturday afternoons. Guess not.

Grasping at straws is now the second most popular Republican apologist activity next to believing that Iraq was involved in 9-11...Play on Mr. Arkin, the idiots and koolaid drinkers await...

I am just a normal news consumer, and your article raises the question whether you should not rather see a psychiatrist? Evidently, normal reasoning is outside your scope of mental functioning. Same should be said for those who allow such trash to be published. A horrible thought would be that the author is actually getting paid for this.

The author is right that the law should be changed, its apparently nearly impossible to use to convict anyone for outing an agent, and thus is useless. There needs to be a law that makes it a crime to out an agent unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so, like the agent is running death squads etc.

Mr Arkin,

Since you earlier claimed that "obscene amenities" were being provided to our forces overseas, your legions of devoted fans, eager to hear more of your keen analysis, are awaiting your article describing these amenities.

*chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

This article states that "some CIA
people blame their lack of middle
east intelligence on Carter and Clinton budget decisions. Excuse me,
but there was 12 years of Reagan and
Bush I in between those presidents,
wasn't that enough time to develop
intelligence gathering assets in the
region? Or are these CIA folks just trying to cover up their own agency's failings?

Who the Post is run by ? Neo-cons ?

Mr. Arkin does not surprise me here. But, I do not share his objectives or goals.

Whether the harm of outing Valerie Plame was small or large, I have yet to read or hear any justification for doing it. Even if she recommended her husband for the trip to Niger, so what? I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain what difference that makes. Just because the administration and its defenders, including the Post's editorial board, claim this is an argument does not make it an argument.

Valerie Plames' testimony before Congress was the first stop on her book tour..

I believed Ms. Plame ulntil I watched the TV coverage in congress last week. Some guy walks by and says "let's send Joe, to Niger". That was a lie.

Here is a little background on the spying craft from Farewell America-James Hepburn.
http://www.voxfux.com/kennedy/farewell/farewell15.html

The Post's editorial page has been consistently wrong in its support of the war and in its commentaries on, among other things, Valerie Plame.

Rather than read the latest balderdash from yet another defender of the Admin's attempt to smear a critic of the war via the cynical strategy of demolishing his wife's career, interested readers would learn alot more by reading the comments of the veteran, Polk Award-winning stringer, Robert Parry.

Unlike the sycophants, appeasers and cowards who pose as journalists at The Post, Parry knows his business and practices it without fear or favor. And it's so damn refreshing to read it, why you'd think you were reading the sort of honest reporting you can still find in England, France, Germany and Italy - the kind you rarely now find in The Post or "The Paper of Record."

Re Plame, for example, Parry's written as follows.

Gary in San Francisco

consortiumnews.com

Plame-gate: Time to Fire WPost's Hiatt

By Robert Parry
March 17, 2007

The testimony of Valerie Plame destroyed some of the long-standing myths about her outing as a covert CIA officer that have been circulated for more than three years by George W. Bush's apologists, including Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.

Indeed, Hiatt and his editorial page cohorts have made trashing Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and mocking the seriousness of Plame's exposure almost a regular feature, recycling many long-discredited White House talking points, including an attempt to question whether Plame was in fact "covert."

After the March 16 hearing before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee, those pro-Bush falsehoods stand in even starker disrepute - as should the reputation of the Post's editorial page, which has never quite reconciled itself to how thoroughly it fell for Bush's Iraq War deceptions.

Based on testimony before Waxman's committee, it also now is clear that while the Post was busy defending the Bush administration on the Plame affair, the White House was conducting a systematic cover-up of its role in the leak.

Though Bush declared in September 2003 that he was determined to get to the bottom of who blew Plame's cover, it was revealed at the March 16 hearing that the White House never even undertook an administrative review to assess responsibility for the leak.

James Knodell, the hapless director of the White House security office, was forced to concede that no internal security investigation was performed; no security clearances were suspended or revoked; no punishment of any kind was meted out to White House political adviser Karl Rove who is now known to have revealed Plame's classified identity to at least two reporters.

Knodell, whose job includes assessing Executive Branch security breaches, said that what he knew about the Plame case was "through the press."

Watergate Betrayal

It may strike some readers as shocking that the Washington Post, which built its reputation more than three decades ago by unraveling Richard Nixon's Watergate cover-up, would now be a party to another White House cover-up. But that would not come as a surprise to anyone who has read the Post's editorial pages over the past six years.

If Washington were a place where there was any meaningful accountability, editorial page editor Hiatt would have been fired long ago for his work lining up the misguided "inside-the-Beltway" consensus behind invading Iraq. Instead he remains one of the capital's most influential journalists.

While one might expect that someone as disastrously wrong on the Iraq War as Hiatt was would at least show some humility before carrying more water for the White House, you'd be wrong again. Hiatt and his editorial page have managed to be as brazenly inaccurate about the Plame case as they were about Iraq's WMD.

How off target became apparent at the opening of the House Oversight Committee hearing when Waxman read a statement that had been approved by CIA Director Michael Hayden. The statement described Plame's former status at the CIA as "covert," "undercover" and "classified."

"Ms. Wilson worked on the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA," Waxman's statement said, adding that her work dealt with "prevention of development and use of WMD against the United States."

Though the CIA still restricts what details can be divulged about Plame's assignments, both Waxman's statement and Plame's testimony indicated that she had served overseas and that - after her identity was disclosed to reporters by the Bush administration in June-July 2003 - she could no longer fulfill her duties.

Plame also testified that she had undertaken overseas assignments in the five years before she was outed, meaning that even the narrow provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 would have been met in her case.

That law makes it a crime to willfully disclose the identity of a U.S. intelligence officer if the identity is classified and the person "has within the last five years served outside the United States."

Covert or Not Covert

The Post editorial page and its opinion sections have made a big deal out of how Plame supposedly wasn't "covert" because she apparently hadn't been "stationed" abroad in the past five years or because her "covert" status hadn't been publicly proven.

For instance, on Feb. 18, 2007, as jurors were about to begin deliberations on whether Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice by lying about his role in leaking Plame's identity, the Post ran a prominent Outlook article by right-wing legal expert Victoria Toensing.

Toensing, who had been buzzing around the TV pundit shows decrying Libby's prosecution, wrote that "Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column."

Though it might not have been clear to a casual reader, Toensing was hanging her claim about Plame not being "covert" on a contention that Plame didn't meet the coverage standards of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Toensing's claim was legalistic at best since it obscured the larger point that Plame was working undercover in a classified CIA position and was running agents abroad whose safety would be put at risk by an unauthorized disclosure of Plame's identity.

But Toensing, who promotes herself as an author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, wasn't even right about the legal details. The law doesn't require that a CIA officer be "stationed" abroad in the preceding five years; it simply refers to an officer who "has served within the last five years outside the United States."

That would cover someone who - while based in the United States - went abroad on official CIA business, as Plame testified that she did.

Toensing, who appeared as a Republican witness at the March 16 congressional hearing, was asked about her bald assertion that "Plame was not covert."

"Not under the law," Toensing responded. "I'm giving you the legal interpretation under the law and I helped draft the law. The person is supposed to reside outside the United States."

But that's not what the law says, either. It says "served" abroad, not "reside."

When asked whether she had spoken to the CIA or Plame about Plame's covert status, Toensing said, "I didn't talk to Ms. Plame or the CIA. I can just tell you what's required under the law. They can call anybody anything they want to do in the halls" of the CIA.

In other words, Toensing had no idea about the facts of the matter; she didn't know how often Plame might have traveled abroad in the five years before her exposure; Toensing didn't even get the language of the statute correct.

Quibbling Kook

At the hearing, Toensing was reduced to looking like a quibbling kook who missed the forest of damage - done to U.S. national security, to Plame and possibly to the lives of foreign agents - for the trees of how a definition in a law was phrased, and then getting that wrong, too.

After watching Toensing's bizarre testimony, one might wonder why the Post would have granted her space on the widely read Outlook section's front page to issue what she called "indictments" of Joe Wilson, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and others who had played a role in exposing the White House hand behind the Plame leak.

One might chalk it up to bending over backwards to give the Right a chance to get one more shot in at the Plame-Wilson family, perhaps some weird sense of "balance." But Toensing's attack lines also matched the Washington Post's editorial positions which have consistently hammered Wilson and made light of White House wrongdoing in the case.

On March 7, after Libby's conviction on four felony counts, the Post's lead editorial continued its long practice of manufacturing a false history of the case.

The real history is now well documented: In 2003, an arrogant administration sought to damage a critic, Wilson, who had offended Vice President Cheney by accusing the White House of having "twisted" Iraq War intelligence. The Cheney-led counterattack against Wilson ended up exposing Wilson's CIA wife. Then, recognizing the potential criminality - not to mention the political dangers - the White House launched a cover-up.

But the Post's editorial page, which had swallowed Bush's WMD lies hook, line and sinker in 2002-03, still couldn't countenance someone who was right while so many super-smart Post editors and executives were wrong. So after the Libby verdict, they joined again in mocking Wilson, saying he "will be remembered as a blowhard."

"Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had 'twisted,' if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq," the Post editorial said. "He claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

"A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false - and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson. ...

"The [Libby] trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity - and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert." [Washington Post, March 7, 2007]

Editorial Lies

But everything in this Post attack on Wilson was either a gross distortion or a lie, often parroting long-discredited White House talking points.

Contrary to the Post's account, Wilson did debunk suspicions that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. He was dispatched by the CIA because of questions asked by Cheney. (Wilson never said Cheney personally sent him.) His information did reach the highest levels of the administration, explaining why the CIA kept trying to delete references to the Niger claims from speeches.

The full Senate Intelligence Committee did not conclude that "all [Wilson's] claims were false." That assertion was rejected by the full committee and then inserted into "additional views" of three right-wing Republicans - Sens. Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch and Christopher Bond - who carried the White House's water in claiming that Wilson's statements "had no basis in fact."

As for the CIA selection of Wilson, the Post editorial-page editors knew that Wilson was chosen by senior CIA officials in the office of counter-proliferation - not by Valerie Plame, who offered a detailed account of her minor role in that recruitment during her March 16 testimony.

The Post also knew that Wilson was well qualified for the assignment since he had served in embassies in Iraq and Niger. He also took on this task pro bono, with the CIA only paying for his expenses.

Plus, Wilson was right again when he alleged that the White House was punishing him for his Iraq War criticism. Indeed, the Washington Post's own reporters have described this reality in the news pages.

On Sept. 28, 2003, a Post news article reported that a White House official disclosed that the administration had informed at least six reporters about Plame and did so "purely and simply out of revenge" against Wilson.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made the same point in a court filing in the Libby case, stating that the investigation had uncovered a "concerted" effort by the White House to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson because of his criticism of the administration. Hiatt can look it up. It was on the Post's front page. [Washington Post, April 9, 2006]

In the March 7 editorial, Hiatt apparently was still hanging his hat on Toensing's narrow concept of what a "covert" officer is - despite the fact that Toensing's analysis relied on word substitutions for definitions in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

As for the lack of evidence at the Libby trial about Plame's covert status, the Post editorial leaves out the context: Libby's defense attorneys argued against admission of that evidence on the grounds that it would prejudice the jury and the judge ruled Plame's covert status to be largely irrelevant to a case narrowly constructed about Libby's lying.

The Post's March 7 editorial also was part of a long pattern of deception by Hiatt and his editorial team when writing about the Iraq War. They have let their neoconservative ideology blind them to facts, reason and fairness. [See, for instance, see Consortiumnews.com's "Shame on the Post's Editorial Page," "Smearing Joe Wilson Again" and "Shame of the WPost, Again."]

In a normal world, a newspaper would praise Joe Wilson for his dedication and patriotism - both for undertaking the CIA mission and blowing the whistle on the President's abuse of intelligence to lead the nation to war.

A newspaper also might be expected to demand stern accountability from the Bush administration for not only damaging national security by exposing Valerie Plame's identity but for then misleading the public and mounting a cover-up of the facts.

To this day - closing in on four years since the White House started its anti-Wilson campaign - political adviser Karl Rove retains his security clearance and neither Bush nor Cheney have issued an apology to the Wilson-Plame family or to the country for damaging an important national security operation.

But the Post editorial board can't seem to get past its own gullibility in buying into the administration's bogus WMD claims in 2002-03. Rather than apologize for enabling Bush and Cheney to lead the nation into a disastrous war, Hiatt and his boss, Washington Post publisher Donald Graham, apparently think they can ignore their responsibility to the readers and to the nation.

That immunity - and hubris - should end with, at minimum, the firing of Fred Hiatt.

[For a Consortiumnews.com special report on the Libby case, see "Zeroing in on Cheney-Bush."]

Pity, isn't it, that that sort of hard-hitting, informative, unspun journalism is no longer fashionable, or "operative," at The Post?

Gary, in San Francisco

I had no idea this man was still employed by the post. Im cancelling my subscription. I now they like to be "fair and balanced" but i can get hugo chavez to write a piece of the post but it wouldnt mean its "fair journalism".

Should anyone want to find out the real story and ramifications of this serious issue, I strongly refer you to the waynemadsenreportdotcom.

Well Mr. Arkin, she should be glad shes not getting "spit on" for serving this country. She reminds me of a mercenarry, wierd..Deja Vu or something.
This is more of a CIA problem. The CIA knew one of their agents was going to be ousted and did NOTHING to protect her identity.

This was a bit confusing and not Mr. Arkin's usual game. He is usually quite astute and provides trenchant reading. Here it seems he is balancing his equations. He was worngfully lambasted for going after the military so now he's after the civilians.

I wholeheartedly concur with the poster who termed this insulting to federal employees.

Theis article should be retracted and labeled for the BS it is. THe author is a quivering piece of excrement which has no grasp of the facts or the consequences in terms of people killed and compromised in the pursuit of limiting terrorist access to radiologicals. The author should apologize immediately and go scratch his filth on the walls of caves.

Mr. Arkin,
Your "take" on the school bus driver problem is as lacking in understanding as your "take" on the reprehensible act of outting a covert CIA agent.

What would terrorists have to have in order to move large quantities of explosives, weapons, etc around the country? (Or perhaps get a job driving a large propane or chemical laden truck?) Ans: A driver with a comercial DRIVERS LICENSE... pinhead. In many states the highest qualifications are required for the bus drivers license, it's pretty much a sign to anyone who hires drivers that the person holding one is trustworthy.

P.S. "but to say Novak broke the law", no one is really concerned about that discretited old hit man. (The press is protected because once in a while they serve to reveal the truth, and not obscure it.) It's the people who broke the law, or at the very least federal regulations, that need to be prosecuted, or, at the very least have their security clearances pulled. They are a danger to national security.

Revealing her name revealed an attitude of malice in the Bush team. But more than that, they thought they were the state and that we had to be personally loyal to them, and this was the only loyalty that could exist or matter.

If you don't like the law, argue for changing the law. Please please please stop saying that it wasn't so bad that she was outed, because "no damage" was done. That's the moral equivalent of saying, "I shot at my wife and missed, but since no damage was done, I should not be held accountable for the illegality of my actions." Libby, Rove, Bush, et al broke the law; they should go to jail, and while there notice how nice it is, because it will be a marked improvement over where they are all headed after that: to burn in hell, the traitorous liars.

This is by far the worst column I have seen written on this blog for some time. You want to say that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is poorly written? No argument here. Unnecessary? I'm on the fence about that one - the work is essential and should be protected; there are many ways to get increased oversight of the agency outside of revealing the names of people in dangerous posts.

So in theory I don't flat-out disagree with the premise of your column. I just hate how gratuitiously offensive and demeaning to federal workers it is. I can't believe the Post would have someone supposedly covering this sector who under the guise of policy criticism takes such cheap (and sexist!) shots. Who from the federal government would bother talking to you? What credibility do you have?

Yes, there are lots of people who work in sensitive ("covert" is loosely used in the IIP act language) positions overseas, and you demonstrate a substantial lack of knowledge about them. They're called non-official cover (noc) agents; anyone who works for the government but is employed by a non-government agency abroad is considered one, so anyone who knew of their official employment while knowing they were also working for the government would know their status. Often their significant others work in high-level positions for the U.S. government; this isn't rare for the international community. Contacts in other countries wouldn't necessarily assume they were doing the same. Nor would contacts in other countries assume they were unemployable because they were attractive and blonde. Not all nocs are in the field trying to pass as a local.

Please, know what you're talking about, and do it more professionally.

This case was about lying and obstruction, not about outing anybody, which they still don't know who actually did it. the post has a way of manipulating you people into believing what they believe. Think for yourselves for a change, people.

This case was about lying and obstruction, not about outing anybody, which they still don't know who actually did it. the post has a way of manipulating you people into believing what they believe. Think for yourselves for a change, people.

Post at it again. The main line of argument of Post used to be that Plame was not covert which resulted in some laughable columns/opinions by Byron York, Victoria Toensing and the editorial columns. Victoria Toensing was exposed at the hearing-she knew next to nothing about Plame's covert status. Now, Post wants to say that the Law is too broad and it should not protect Plame because somehow they know what work she did or not do at the agency. Seems to be very fishy. I wonder what the agenda of the Post in attacking Valerie. Is it because Joe Wilson got it right when Post was beating the drums of the war. Something very-2 fishy here.

"...Now I'm no lawyer, but to say that Novak broke the law, one would have to determine that he knew the information was classified and that he knew that the revelation would damage U.S. national security..."

So, now "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" doesn't work anymore? Nice!

Seems like he is trying to get into the good graces of the people he offended with his mercenary thing a while back by throwing them a few bones.

An experienced agent and everyone she had contact with in the past were destroyed as effective agent in the fights against WMD's. Estimated Cost: Millions?

A cover company and all the agents associated with it were made useless as intelligence resources. Cost 10-100 Million.

1 to 10 bombs worth of material that will slip through the cracks created (a 100x the threat of Saddam) cost ??

==The second paragraph, classified S/NF, read in part as follows: "In a February 19, 2002, meeting convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD manager, and the wife of Joe Wilson, he previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger."==

I beleive this paragraph was repudiated by the CIA as "innacurate". The meeting was not "convened" by Plame, she had no authority to do so and the State Department author of the memo was in no position to actually know these things. Essentially the INR memo was a hack job.

It wasn't just Plame who was revealed as a CIA operative. The entire CIA cover company she worked for was revealed. Look it up: Brewster, Jennings & Associates. That company was deeply involved globally in combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Now Brewster, Jennings & Associates, it agents and local confederates have all been given up. Novak, Rove and the other leakers did significant harm to US national security interests. And Arkin is whining about Plame. Loser.

Arkin blames the victim. Arkin is an idiot.

I agree on Arkin on just one point. I think that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act should be repealed. It's language contains too many loop-holes for prosecuting leakers. It should be re-worked where political motivated leaks, or leaks by government officials without significant effort to pre-determine the status of classified information, or even the confirmation of classified information should be treated as illegal with significant jail time. With all the loop-holes in the law, Bush and Co. got away from violating the law. He would have gotten away by being a Moron. However, it does not pardon Bush and his cronies for the morally deprived actions to undermine the career, livelihood, and image of an individual for purely personal, political reasons. This itself should be a crime!

Before we can determine whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is necessary or effective, we need to find out the true level of damage caused by the compromise of Valerie Plame's identity, along with that of Brewster Jennings. How many NOC agents were using the Brewster Jennings cover until it was revealed as a CIA front? What impact did the revelation have on their activities? Rather than speculate as to how effective an attractive blonde would be as a CIA agent, why not find out how many people she contacted as an agent were endangered by revealing her identity?

And, let's stop trying to blame Joe Wilson for outing his wife. The fact that he had a long career as a foreign service officer in Niger and elsewhere in Africa was justification enough for him to be asked by the CIA to investigate the Niger story without bringing his wife into it.

Once we determine how much damage was really done to US national security, we can then make a determination as to whether IIPA is adequate as stands, or should be strengthened or weakened. I suspect that the damage done by compromising Valerie Plame's identity was far worse than anybody has acknowledged. Let's hope the House Government Reform committee's investigation will give us those answers.

I like the fact that they(administration) did't like what Wilson said so they go after his wife. Now that' what a Man's Man would do? What a bunch of pricks. If the kids were older would they go for them too?
Oh I also believe that Carter increased the CIA budget just because they need better intel from Iran.

Perhaps the law needs to be changed but the central issue remains.

1. The administration deliberately blew the cover of a 'secret agent'.

2. Many if not most of the people who may be thinking about turning traitor to their country and providing the US secrets have access to the Internet and news sites.

3. Should I risk my life, liberty and property working for a country whose own government outs its own agents for a petty personal vendetta? During an intelligence war?

Maybe Plame was as effective as Smiley and Karla combined or maybe she just collected gossip at cocktail parties or most likely she fit somewhere in between; that is not the point. Maybe Ms. Plame knew she was going to be on television and wanted to look her best; that is not the point. Maybe the CIA could be run more effectively; but that is also not the point.

The point is that even if the administration thought Joe Wilson's editorial would be the most moving political treatise since Thomas Paine and Common Sense, their rebuttal was to tell every agent who has ever worked for us or who may ever work for us DON'T. While not the most treasonous act a VP can make and a President can condone, it is certainly near the top.

In the early days of this affair the existence of a State Department so called INR document was bandied about. One commenter characterized as a possible "vector" for the leak. The INR doc stayed under wraps for years, and so did Armitage's central role in Novak's disclosure. In 2006 the INR doc was made public with some redactions. The subject line read, "Niger/Iraq Uranium Story and Joe Wilson (Secret/No Foreign)". The second paragraph, classified S/NF, read in part as follows: "In a February 19, 2002, meeting convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD manager, and the wife of Joe Wilson, he previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger."

In 2003 Wilson leaked his trip to Kris off. A week or so later, he leaked it to Pincus. Newspaper stories about a CIA initiative to Niger re yellowcake resulted. Subsequently Wilson wrote his "What I didn't find in Africa" NYT piece, in which he identified himself as the unnamed person who the CIA had dispatched to Africa. In other words, he loaded the 'Wilson name - CIA connection' gun, and then pulled the trigger himself. In his NYT piece he also wrote this, "there was nothing secret about my trip."

In regard to the above, some questions for Ms. Plame back on the Hill under oath.

Was your husband's trip to Niger a classified subject within CIA?

Ostensibly his first discussion of his trip to Niger was a lunch with Kristoff. Prior to this meeting, did he mention to you that he was going to publicly disclose his Niger trip?

Did he mention his disclosure to Kristoff to you after the lunch?

Did he discuss his disclosure to Pincus with you?

Did he tell you about his NYT article in advance? Did you read his article before he submitted it to the NYT?

If on any occasion you learned of his intention to disclose, or the fact of his disclosure, of the Niger trip, did you express a view, advice or concern about his actions?

When you saw his trip disclosed in newspapers, what exactly did you tell your husband?

In your Hill testimony you said your employment as a CIA officer was not common knowledge. That is not categorical. It implies that some persons, not authorized to know your true status, did in fact know or learn it? Do you know of a single such person, and if so, who was it or who were they?

As an experienced CIA officer, and in view of the Kristoff, Pincus and Wilson articles, can you say that the public disclosure that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA was not entirely predictable?

Mr. Arkin-

you are clearly without shame. While our soldiers are fighting for US overseas, you are badmouthing the CIA. The reason the CIA has had some problems is because Bill Clinton cut their funding to the bone during the 1990s.Only since 9/11 has BUSH begun to restore our intelligence assets.It won't happen overnight. however, if we let you and the liberal media elites run the show, we'd never restore the CIA to what it once was in the heyday. How about instead of being part of the problem you become part of the solution? Also, do you think it helps the terrorists by announcing in your blog that we don't have anyone infiltrating their organizations? Why would you say something like that? Do you want bin Laden, the evil one, to know that? Whose side are you on Bill?

This opinion piece is just plain silly.

First, if you want to improve oversight then give congressional committees the powers to do so. How does releasing the names of all agents improve oversight?

Second, the focus of Mr. Arkin's "analysis" should not have been on Bob Novak but on Armitage, Libby and Rove and others who knew or ought to have known that Valerie Plame's identity was classified but were nonetheless telling reporters. How is it the public's interest to have no penalty for revealing the names of agents?

Third, neither Mr. Arkin nor the public have the benefit of knowing Ms. Plame's assignments. Speculating about it like Mr. Arkin has cannot be taken seriously. Mr. Arkin imagines what Ms. Plame did then launches into a criticism about how those activities are not what the CIA should be doing. Talk about a house-of-cards argument.

Finally, how is it in the public's interest to have such detailed knowledge about the budgets of the various intelligence agencies? We should tell our enemies exactly where the money is spent?

Again, a truly silly opinion piece by Mr. Arkin.

Bill,

By your own words you seem to be chasing the wrong dog in this discussion.

"Ask former CIA people why that is, and they still say Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton -- arguing that cuts in CIA staff during the 1970's and 1990's are the reason why we still do not have good human intelligence. To them, the problem couldn't be the elite and blond CIA culture itself."

The CIA currently differs from using American citizens fluent not only in Aramaic and other M.E. languages, but also the various cultures in the M.E, because they are of M.E. heritage. This is going on today, so why blame Clinton and Carter, oh! I forgot they're Democrats, seems like just more neocon political BS from the conservatives.

"So skilled, so crucial to our national security that her husband can write a political op-ed in The New York Times revealing his own clandestine relationship with the agency, a relationship that was sure to be linked back to his wife. I say one less incompetent and nincompoop on the government payroll."

Hardly, nincompoop when he was trying to stop a war in Iraq based on false intel. More like a hero! The nincompoops were bush & co.. The whole affair has conspiracy written all over it from the beginning:

1. Get intel, even false intel to invade Iraq. (Bush & Co.)
2. Wilson blows the lid on the operation with an Op-Ed. (Joe Wilson)
3. White house conspires to strike back at Wilson by outing his wife and ruining her career by allowing Rove, Amitage, Libby, Cheney...to reveal her covert identity. Hard to believe Bush wasn't involved in that meeting?

Let's see; because Valerie Plame is blonde and attractive, Mr. Arkin has determined that there's no way she could have been an effective, covert agent. And since Arkin doesn't think Plame could have been effective (because she's blonde and attractive) the CIA was therefore wrong to label her a covert agent. Now, according to Mr. Arkin, it therefore follows that Congress ought to change the law because, according to Arkin, the major issue facing the country as a result of the CIA leak case is not whether people considered by the CIA to be covert should be "outed," but rather, "why does the CIA label so many people covert? Especially people who are attractive and blonde?" Mr Arkin would have us believe that this is the burning issue arising from the CIA leak case with which our Congress must deal. Mr. Arkin's column is easily one of the most idiotic, transparent attempts at blame shifting that I've read in awhile. I have an idea Mr. Arkin; mix in a fact or two every now and again. You know, just for variety's sake.

Wheres the proof of what you are claiming. Fitzgerald proved his case.

Incredibly ignorant column. Did Arkin not listen to Ms. Plame's testimony last week, when she spelled out exactly how her cover and operations were exposed and career ruined? And, I suppose that since she is blond and attractive, she's an airhead? Try writing on something you know about, pal.

Mr. Arkin-
I guess the greatest attribute to your writing is that I never know when I am or am not going to agree with you. In this article, I have to say, this is nothing more than the editorial equivalent of "mistakes were made". Whatever the spirit of the CIA law, it is undeniable that its purpose was overlooked by the administration's need to justify a known lie. Hey, we all take risks in life. This admin tooks risks that the ends would justify the means. Sadly for them, the end is exposing the illegality and deviousness of the means.

Who was Valerie Wilson and how did a blond get to do what she did? Well, a small bit of research would have let you know that Brewster Jennings was an energy consultation firm or so they let everyone to believe. Ms. Wilson was a 'consultant' who got assignments from them..according to the cover.. to ask questions and come up with consultant-type answers. Did it work? Yep, right up until it was blown away. Nice job!

Dear Mark,

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Who is this nincompoop? Oh right, another right wing shill that no one cares about spouting off in the WaPo. Congratulations, WaPo, on your lead in the race to mediocrity.

If so called main stream media like washingtonpost allow to do the smear job for Karl, this nation is doomed indeed. Who else is better? Only liberal blogs are fighing for truth.

Plame also ran the Iraqi aluminum tube intercept operations.

So she appears to have had a pretty consequential career in several fields at the CIA. The consulting business cover was very well developed and apparently quiet effective. It involved many people, not just her.

It is pretty startling to still hear accomplishments diminished based on gender and appearance.

It is perhaps her good looks that served her well in her foreign "consulting" work. CIA would never hire someone like her to be an operative...right?

If the Pakistani "businessmen" were as sexist as Arkin appears to be, I would say her cover was pretty safe. Until Libby and Novak came along.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

U.S. attorney's firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe

By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail th