The CIA Agent Flap: FBI Asks for Reporters to Talk

TIME ^ | Jan. 02, 2004 | JOHN F. DICKERSON AND VIVECA NOVAK

[Shermy]

I saw that, yes. And there's bits and pieces out there in other places.

I'm surprised nobody has done an in depth article on this guy...maybe too murky.

One can always hope though...

No one else but me on the web seems mentions the gold mine statement in the VF article...It jumped out at me...maybe it's just "me"...or maybe there's a lot of smarter people out there who don't spend five bucks on a rag like VF.

;-)

[SeaDragon]

The fundamental principle of protecting the identity of clandestine intelligenece operatives. Somebody gave that name up. He/she needs to be held accountable.

Ah yes, I understand that principle and it is a good one. If that was the case then someone should be held accountable but do you really believe that this woman was an undercover operative? I certainly don't.

[Gothmog]

If Plame was such an undercover operative, why didn't the CIA object more strenuously when Novak called them and told them he was was going to name her in his article. As I remember Novak's version he called the CIA to get confirmation she worked there. The CIA said they would rather Novak didn't name her, but made no big deal.

Novak is an experienced reporter. If the CIA had said, 'No, under no circumstance name her,' Novak wouldn't have. But instead the CIA just shrugged. That should give you an indication of just how 'undercover' she was.

And IMHO Novak learned Plame worked for the CIA from sources at the State Dept. If you wanted to find out the background of a former ambassador, wouldn't that be where you would call?

Anyway, what I am really interested in is finding out more about what Wilson and Dem Senators talked about at a 'policy luncheon' last May, about six weeks before Wilson publicly attacked Bush. Wilson has said he 'mentioned' his trip to them, but I'm betting there was was more discussed between the publicity hound and Dem Senators desperately looking for ways to attack Bush after the successfully liberation of Iraq.

[Zack Nguyen]

Novak is an experienced reporter. If the CIA had said, 'No, under no circumstance name her,' Novak wouldn't have. But instead the CIA just shrugged.

If the CIA had said, "Oh dear God, don't put her name in print" that might have inspired more digging on the part of nosy journalists. They don't want to give them more info than they already have.

The principle here is that clandestine operatives must be concealed, because in some cases if that info is revealed people get killed.

I'd like to know more about Joe Wilson's talks with Democrats, too.

[Zack Nguyen]

Well obviously I don't know for sure. But if she was an employee of the Directorate of Operations, and her employment status was as a clandestine operative, it doesn't matter if her employment was an open secret, its still against the law to reveal her name.

[elli1]

Ah yes, I understand that principle and it is a good one. If that was the case then someone should be held accountable but do you really believe that this woman was an undercover operative? I certainly don't.

My thinking is that the question pivots on why she would have suggested her husband for the Niger trip--as in, was she operating undercover within the CIA? She knew full well that Wilson was highly partisan & most likely knew that he had other conflicts of interest as alluded to w/ the business interests. Most importantly, this episode has exposed operational weaknesses w/in CIA to say nothing of the political ideology of those involved in approving Wilson's ''mission''. It's a tale of personal & perhaps institutional political ideology & individual financial interests trumping national interests and that is The Story.

IMO, all of this pissing & moaning about laws being broken is like demanding the prosecution of the person who knocked down your door & dragged your butt out of a warm & cozy bed when they did so because flames were licking out of your living room window.

[cyncooper]

BTW, that puts Wilson at a seminar organized by the Sahel Club of Paris in May 13-14, 2003. The list of attendees is a virtual who's who of the Axis of Weasels' diplomatic corps.

Thanks to you both for your fascinating links and excerpts.

I am just convinced that there were two plans to try to bring down Bush and Blair, both on the charges that they "lied" about intelligence.

I noted the above May dates of Wilson at a seminar.

Look when Dr. Kelly (who I think was definitely stabbing Blair in the back with his "sexed-up" charge and killed himself once the jig was up) met with the reporter Gilligan----a reporter Kelly would have avoided had he been an honorable sort. After all, it was Gilligan during the war that "reported" that Coalition forces were NOT at Baghdad Airport. What kind of person must Kelly have been to have met secretly with Gilligan and murmur about Dossiers containing lies and that Blair had misrepresented British intelligence in order to go to war? Not a very good person, is my assessment.

Anyway, the date Kelly met with Gilligan was May 22.

Kelly Hearing

Excerpt:

Q32 Andrew Mackinlay: Okay. You met Gilligan, I think, for the first time about two and a half years ago?

Dr Kelly: Not to my recollection. The first time that I remember meeting him was at a meeting in September of last year.

Q33 Andrew Mackinlay: September 2002?

Dr Kelly: Correct.

Q34 Andrew Mackinlay: How many times have you seen him since?

Dr Kelly: Twice.

Q35 Andrew Mackinlay: On what occasions?

Dr Kelly: A day in February, a date I cannot remember, I am having difficulty locating it, and the now infamous May 22 meeting.

Q36 Andrew Mackinlay: Of this year?

Dr Kelly: Of this year.

END EXCERPT

Now, the dossier and its contents had been around. What moved Kelly to meet with Gilligan in May?

[Gothmog]

I think you're missing the point on a couple of things. One, Novak didn't have to do any more digging. Two sources had already told him that Plame was Wilson's wife. He was just calling to confirm that 'yes' she worked for the CIA.

The CIA said 'yes' she does, but we'd rather not have her, or any other CIA operative's, name appear in print. In other words, SOP. If Plame were some sort of secret CIA undercover operative, the CIA would have said 'no comment' or asked him to deal with it on 'deep background,' meaning no names used. They CIA did not do that.

This would suggest even to people unfamiliar with the CIA and the media that the CIA did not consider her a serious asset that needed the utmost protection. Sherlock Holmes would have asked 'Why didn't the dog bark.' I'm pointing out the dog (CIA) didn't bark.

And Novak, an experienced DC journalist whether you agree with his views or not, certainly understands the rules regarding disclosure.

What you may also be overlooking is culpability on Wilson and Plame's part in 'uncovering' her ID. Plame and her husband themselves left her ID as a CIA undercover operative at risk.

Wilson listed her in on-line bios and in his "Who's Who" bio as his wife. She married a high-profile (in diplomatic circles) foreign diplomat. One of them listed her CIA cover on a check to the Gore 2000 presidential campaign -- easily accessible on-line.

Plame seems to have worked to get her husband sent to Nigeria on a rather high-profile assignment. When snubbed by the administration, Wilson first goes to Senate Dems and then to the NYTimes and the WPost to publicly attack Bush.

This should be stressed. 'Supersecret undercover CIA agent' Plame and Wilson (who 'desperately wants to keep his wife's secret ID secret') invited the WPost's Walter Pincus, who reports on intelligence issues and whose wife works at the State Department's version of the CIA, to their house the weekend before his NYTimes op-ed for the specific purpose of showing Pincus his op-ed and giving Pincus an exclusive interview.

I would like anyone to point to an example in the past year, two years, whenever, that anyone got their op-ed in the NYTimes and also got an exclusive WPost interview on the same subject the same day. Hint -- it's pretty freaking rare.

None of these actions are those of a secret, undercover CIA operative whose first concern is safeguarding her ID. What these actions are indicative of are those of a partisan bureaucrat seeking to use ther position to further their agenda.

Then they get caught and start claiming victim status. I agree with your principle, but there is quite a lot going on behind the scenes that should make anyone who has been following this farce realize that Plame, Wilson, etc., are not simply innocent people caught up in a scandal.

They started it and were incredibly sloppy, now they're depending on favorible lib media coverage and a gullible public to win the debate.

[piasa]

This is a serious matter. It does make it a little more difficult to feel sorry for the CIA operative and her husband when they do a photo shoot for Vanity Fair, nevertheless, revealing the names of clandestine and covert operators can get people killed, not to mention the loss for our national security.

No kidding. In this case, by Wilson's admission, Valerie Plame broke her cover to him after "the first kiss", and did so without any concern about any operatives she could be endangering by doing so.

There is no exception in the rules permitting frisky CIA maidens to blow their own CIA cover just because they want to impress a new boyfriend.