Cheney sued in CIA identity case

[Hap]

one of y'all gonna pop an artery.  


hap

[dhaus]

Let me get this straight:  the President announced we were at war.  We then have Wilson disputing one of the administration's claims as to Iraqi quests for nuclear weapons.  The administration neither denies nor confirms Wilson's allegations, but, instead, attempts to score political points by discrediting Wilson by revealing that his wife was a CIA employee.  Moreover, the wife's duties involved attempts to track nuclear proliferation and that she was the person who set up the trip to Nigeria.  How is this defensible?  She "really" wasn't  a covert operative?  Let's destroy HER career even though it was her husband who spoke up - and whose statement has not been refuted.  I'm sure those of you defending the administration on this one would defend Hillary if she publicizes the identity of a CIA agent in a time of war to "get back" at that agent's spouse to score political points.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by dhaus
 ......She "really" wasn't  a covert operative?  Let's destroy HER career even though it was her husband who spoke up - and whose statement has not been refuted.  .....

The virtual vigilantes circling Karl Rove have everything lined up for the brand of justice they see fit for “the Architect”: public humiliation, all-out character assassination, firing, near-fatal damage to the White House, and if they get the cherry on top, “frog-marching” the President’s closest advisor from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a federal prison.

There’s just one hitch: their entire political case rests on the quicksand known as Joe Wilson.

 

As part of the cynical campaign to destroy the man who guided Bush to four straight electoral victories, the Left has hailed Wilson as a hero.  At first blush, the idiocy of exalting the man with a well-documented credibility problem would seem to rival the decision to roll the cameras as Dukakis gave the thumbs-up while riding in a tank.

 

But the Left’s entire rationale for the “Fire Rove” tidal wave is that revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee was nothing more than a “shameful,” “despicable,” and “disturbing” act of “retaliation,” “retribution,” or “revenge.”  If they admitted that Wilson layered lies upon lies, then logic dictates that Rove did no more than encourage a reporter not to be hoodwinked.

 

Which helps explain why New Republic editor Peter Beinart, who is neither a peacenik nor blinded by Bush hatred, appeared incredulous when I pointed out in our CNN debate on Wednesday that Joe Wilson was not exactly credible.  “Joe Wilson is not the one with a credibility problem here,” he snapped.

 

Though—as left-wing blogger Josh Marshall has noted ad nauseum—Wilson didn’t directly say that he was sent by the Vice-President’s office, the implication couldn’t have been clearer.  “The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer,” Wilson wrote in his now-infamous New York Times op-ed.

 

Thus, the defense of Wilson’s credibility boils down to skilled parsing: he didn’t say that Cheney’s office sent him, he only implied it.  Sounds an awful lot like the semantic acrobatics of which Wilson’s defenders accuse Rove’s supporters being guilty.

 

Even if you give Wilson the benefit of the doubt on that count, though, the career diplomat still has not been on speaking terms with the truth.

 

Just over one year ago, the man married to the retired CIA operative formerly known as Valerie Plame was exposed as an opportunist who lied at almost every turn in an audacious bid to grab his 15 minutes—and a seven-figure book deal.  

 

He was outed not by Rove, the White House, or some right-wing outfit, but by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

 

According to the report, Plame “offered up” the services of her husband.  She believed that intelligence surrounding Niger and yellowcake was bogus—she called it a “crazy report”—making it highly likely that her husband went there looking to confirm that conclusion.  He did.

 

Or did he?  The bipartisan conclusion of the committee was that Wilson's findings, if anything, served to support the belief that Saddam was actively seeking uranium for a nuclear program.

 

But Wilson revealed himself as the headline potato he is by grabbing the spotlight when the story first emerged about Niger and forged documents purporting to show illicit sales to Saddam.  From the July 10, 2004 Washington Post:

 

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

 

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

 

Obviously, Wilson’s apologists don’t much like the bipartisan report.

 

Retired CIA officer Larry Johnson, who entered the agency in the same class as Plame, attacked the bipartisan report as “biased.”  Marshall, despite being one the Left’s best bloggers, went one step further in writing that it was filled with “disinformtation.”

 

Wilson, for his part, pandered to the stupid and/or willingly blind—his base—by denying that his wife’s letter had anything to do with his trip to Niger.  “I don’t see it as a recommendation to send me,” he said about his wife’s memo.  Never mind that the day after she sent it came the cable to an officer overseas that set the whole thing in motion.

 

While Wilson’s penchant for prevarication does not put Rove in the clear legally if, as it does not yet appear, he actually knew that Plame was undercover before he talked to Bob Novak and Time’s Matt Cooper.  

 

Each piece of evidence that trickles out, however, suggests just the opposite.  Today’s New York Times reports that Novak testified that he called Rove—just as Cooper had—and that Rove did not give any indication that Plame was undercover.  The Times further reports that Novak testified Bush’s right-hand man was merely his second source.  If true, this explodes the Left’s theory that Rove was shopping the story for any willing taker.  It also adds credence to the likelihood that he had no clue Plame’s status at the CIA.

 

Rove’s warning to Cooper, as Newsweek reported, not to “get too far out” on Wilson’s Niger claims was, with hindsight, absolutely correct.  And it helped expose the shaky credibility of the man who was attempting to snooker the American public.

 

Which brings us back to the fundamental problem faced by the “get Rove” crowd: they need Wilson to be credible.  He’s not.  That’s all Rove was pointing out to Cooper—and only after the Time reporter asked him about it.

 

Who again is the one with the credibility problem?

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles//Printable.asp?ID=18798

[rpm]

Originally posted by dhaus
Let me get this straight:  the President announced we were at war.  We then have Wilson disputing one of the administration's claims as to Iraqi quests for nuclear weapons.  The administration neither denies nor confirms Wilson's allegations, but, instead, attempts to score political points by discrediting Wilson by revealing that his wife was a CIA employee.  Moreover, the wife's duties involved attempts to track nuclear proliferation and that she was the person who set up the trip to Nigeria.  How is this defensible?  She "really" wasn't  a covert operative?  Let's destroy HER career even though it was her husband who spoke up - and whose statement has not been refuted.  I'm sure those of you defending the administration on this one would defend Hillary if she publicizes the identity of a CIA agent in a time of war to "get back" at that agent's spouse to score political points.

I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Good post!:aok

[bj229r]

Originally posted by rpm
I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Good post!:aok

Well..as long as accuracy doesn't matter;)

[Nash]

Yeah, he got one thing wrong.

She wasn't the person who set up Wilson's trip.

Other than that, I'd say that sums it up too.

[Gunslinger]

I doubt the case will get that far.

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have run into a bit of bad luck in their lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and ten random Republicans. CQ reader Denis K took a peek at the complaint and noticed something that I had missed earlier -- the judge assigned to the case. Wilson and Plame drew Judge John D. Bates -- and a quick glance at his rulings will no doubt have the Left fuming.

For instance, Judge Bates ruled in January 2005 that Michael Newdow would suffer no harm if the President said a prayer at his inauguration. Newdow, most known for using his (non-custodial) child as a means to attack the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his bid to enact a prior restraint on the President's speech at his own inauguration simply because Newdow planned to attend.

If that doesn't get the Democratic Underground in a fury, they may instead recall their anger when Judge Bates told Congress that they had no standing to sue for access to the records of Dick Cheney's energy task force. Relying on "the restricted role of the Article III courts in our constitutional system of government," Bates denied the request of the GAO, spurred on by Democrats who disliked the energy plan pushed by the White House. The judge ruled that the separation of powers and executive privilege meant that Cheney could consult with advisors to formulate policy without producing records of the meeting to Congress.

It gets even better, or worse, depending on one's point of view. Judge Bates received an appointment earlier this year to the FISA Court, the secret panel that reviews warrant requests for national-security investigations. He replaced Judge James Robertson, who resigned in protest against the Bush administration's bypass of the FISA Court on the NSA terrorist surveillance program. How sympathetic will Judge Bates be to a lawsuit from someone who leaked misinformation after getting sent on an assignment by his wife?

And, hell, if that doesn't do it for Wilson supporters, his work as one of Kenneth Starr's staff during his independent-counsel investigation of Bill Clinton should force them into despair.

How long will it take before the Left starts screaming "CONSPIRACY"? Faster than the Wilsons can file a disqualification motion with the court.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I doubt the case will get that far.

Heya Gunslinger.

Mind if you provide us with a source?

With such hard hitting journalismo such as:

"How long will it take before the Left starts screaming "CONSPIRACY"? Faster than the Wilsons can file a disqualification motion with the court."

I'd love to read more of this compelling fact-based reporting.

Link me, will ya?

[Gunslinger]

Here's the link http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007494.php

The article is written by a blogger I read almost daily.  http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

It'd be easier for you to go their and see his sourcing than for me to post it here.

[Nash]

Ah okay. A blog.

No worries there.....

As far as I'm concerned , they beat the MSM to the punch by at least a few days. Sometimes by months.

And I'm glad to see you getting the show back on topic wrt this lawsuit.... and not rehashing some old, ridiculous argument about Plame's status.

[dhaus]

It will be interesting to see how far this suit goes.  Novak has identified administration officials as being his source for his story.  The named persons will no doubt move to dismiss the case on several grounds.  One ground could be that the officials will claim official immunity on the basis that the information was revealed as part of their official duties.  Hmm, publishing the identity of a CIA agent in time of war to score political points qualifies as an official duty?  Another, and one apparently being pushed by some here, would be that Plame suffered no damage in that her employment by the CIA was known, that her covert status, if any, had been blown some time ago, and that further publicity of her employment did not ruin her career.  Her burden to establish damages is not helped by the fact that she resigned and was not fired.  Of course, if the issue is damages, she should be able to get to trial to see if she can prove them up.  Back to the official immunity defense.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Nash
Yeah, he got one thing wrong.

She wasn't the person who set up Wilson's trip.

Other than that, I'd say that sums it up too.

You're saying that Valerie DIDN'T set up Joe's trip?

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)
.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

[john9001]

""The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.""


she was no james bond, "non-official cover", the CIA had set up a dummy company in africa to gather information, she worked for that dummy company, i don't know what she did there.

not everyone working for the CIA is a covert agent, maybe she was a "miss moneypenny"

[dhaus]

So we're back to she wasn't "really" a covert agent defense.  Oh, was Wilson wrong about the Nigerian documents being forgeries and the Nigerian connection unfounded?  I'm reading he got some dates wrong and he couldn't have known about that, etc.  Isn't the basic contention the documents themselves were forgeries and known to be so.  Didn't the Italian CIA bureau chief report to the administration that the notion of Iraq contacts with Nigeria were without corroboration and extremely suspect?  I am not saying this is correct, I merely recall  reading it somewhere.  So my questions here are: 1) was the basic contention made by Wilson incorrect?  And, if so, 2) what did publishing the nature of his wife's employment have to do with correcting his misinformation?  These questions will be at the bottom of the lawsuit.

[bj229r]

I'm of the view that she used her job to inject her liberal politics into the Iraq situation (sending her unqualified husband over there to be in a position to criticise the Bush admin.)  and thus caused her own grief