Posted on 10/02/2003 7:47:17 AM PDT by Wolfstar
Hi, Howlin. I think it's been pretty well established that Ms. Plame-Wilson had ceased being a covert operative in 1997. There was no crime committed in "outing" her. Either this prosecutor is completely misusing the relevant statute, or something else is going on in that Grand Jury. Unfortunately, I have zero faith in special prosecutors, so I would not be shocked if this one does something totally weird simply to justify the work he's been doing the last couple of years.
Yes.
Technically, her cover was "compromised" by Aldrich Ames. She was brought back and they dealt with her cover being compromised at that time in regards to any overseas operations.
She remained an undercover or covert employee. That status isn't determined by your job or where you are or what you're doing. You just are or aren't, according to what the agency designates you.
That she was compromised by Ames or she ceased doing covert work overseas does not necessarily mean she was no longer an undercover employee. But it's significant because it nullifies the histrionics of those who know better when they go on and on about the danger this put on employees, operations and foreign sources. Having already been compromised by Ames, she would not have been part of any operations that would need to be protected by the statute.
She was still undercover, but that was simply her status as an employee. She could have spent the next 20 years as an undercover employee never doing so much as writing a letter under a pseudonym.
Do you mean at the time of the article by Novak?
We know she was undercover when she started because it was revealed that she was a Career Trainee--all Career Trainees are undercover and typically will be undercover throughout their careers, no matter what job they have. Also, all employees stationed overseas are undercover.
If she became an open employee some time between coming back to the states and the Novak article being written, that's possible. I tend to doubt it--anyone could take one look at her file and see that she was an open employee and that would be the end of it. There's no voodoo in determining your status--you are or you aren't.
I just don't see how any of this could have proceeded past the first minute of the first accusation if she wasn't undercover--that's something the administration could determine with a phone call. In addition, all of her coworkers would know one way or the other if she was open or covert. If she turns out not to be an undercover employee, there's something seriously wrong with this prosecutor, this administration, the Justice Department and anyone else involved--it shouldn't take two years and millions of dollars just to find out she wasn't undercover. There's just no way.
I've been trying to read through all of the other threads linked to this one--I don't know if I've missed it somewhere, but do we know if Wilson has any connections to the McGovern group before Plame started working with Alan Foley?
If not, I think that explains a lot of his changing opinions. He spent his career on African issues, suddenly he lists a specific interest in Palestinian issues? And starts working for the Saudis?
This all started to get Cheney, not Rove. They'll take Rove as the consolation prize. Cheney and his neocons are the specific target of the McGovern group because they are very pro-Palestinian.
One of the basic questions is why Wilson was sent on the Niger trip to begin with. I honestly suspect that it began legitimately as a fact-finding mission. I don't think the plot was hatched at that time. That's why he came back and in his debriefing talked about the attempts and his report supported what was said in the SOTU.
From there, it could be either that the plot was hatched with the McGovern group, or that Wilson's own ego led him to become very vocal to his McGovern friends about his trip and how that's not what he found, blah, blah, blah. And the McGovern group prodded him to start speaking out and making waves, which is what they had begun to do as well on their own. Originally I thought more the former theory, but as Wilson's ego has been revealed I'm leaning more toward the latter. I think he became friendly with that circle through his wife and caught up in the PR campaign against Cheney that they had began via anonymous sourcing to reporters. I think they were using him and I think he also burned them--they definitely seem to have distanced themselves from him since then.
That's the theory that makes the most sense to me right now, but the other ideas at the end of this thread are pretty interesting, too, so I definitely want to look into those some more.
The earliest I'm aware of Wilson being in contact with McGovern is June 2003 when they spoke jointly at a lecture to the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC). I don't know if they had any contact before that. Wilson first seems to have started working with left-wing antiwar forces between June 2002 (when he joined former ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsberg's Alliance for American Leadership--Ginsberg like Wilson having a background in advising on Middle Eastern investments) and October 2002 (when he wrote his first article on the Iraq debate for the San Jose Mercury); McGovern's Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) was formed in January 2003, and I don't know what he was doing before that or if it crossed Wilson's path. But in relation to the Palestinian angle, Wilson may have developed his views on Palestinian-Israeli issues during the 1988-1997 period when his assignments included Iraq and political advisor to the United States European Command in Germany, where he helped provide support to US/UK/Turkish operations in northern Iraq. During these assignments Wilson developed relationships with Turkish intelligence, military, and business figures who had negative views on Israel and its alleged influence on US Middle Eastern policy. Wilson and Turkish General Cevik Bir expressed similar views on Iraq when they spoke together at events held by the American-Turkish Council (ATC). It seems likely this context also shaped Wilson's views on Israel and Palestine, so his interest in this area may have predated his relationship with McGovern.
BTW thanks for the comments on the definition of undercover status above--useful clarification.
PS: I meant to add, shortly after 9/11 Wilson and Brent Scowcroft began discussing their concerns about what they perceived as growing "neo-con" influence in the administration's foreign policy, which would be another indicator his views on Palestine predated his association with McGovern in 2003.
Another mention of Wilson's first wife in post #262.
Thanks for looking that up! :-)
I think Wilson got hooked up with McGovern and other VIPS when Plame was working for Alan Foley at WINPAC. McGovern and Foley were friends and both had been Soviet analysts at the CIA. VIPS officially formed in January 2003, but loosely began to associate and get together the previous year. My gut told me McGovern and VIPS are behind much of this and that's the trail I've been following--even before the Wilson op-ed hit the Times. Since March 2003 or so he's been parroting openly and anonymously their lines about cooked intelligence.
I do believe Wilson's trip began legitimately (he also made one in 1999), which would explain why he didn't comment on the "16 words" in interviews after the SOTU address. I don't think it was a set-up for future use and the explanation about not being sure they were talking about Niger was cooked up when they came up with the idea to use trip.
I found something interesting that might support that when I checked to see what McGovern has been up to lately. Back in 2003, McGovern said of Foley:
"I have worked with Alan Foley. He is cut of the same cloth as Ambassador Wilson. I am betting that the White House's latest preemptive strike will not deter Foley and other intelligence officials able to put conscience and integrity before career from following Wilson's example. "
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1003-11.htm
He said it should get "interesting". I guess he expected Foley to come out with explosive accusations and revelations about cooked intel?
Yet this past spring he's been saying:
"The result? Many bright analysts quit rather than take part in cooking intelligence-to-go. In contrast, those inspired by Gates' example followed suit and saw their careers flourish. So much so that when in September 2002 Tenet asked his senior managers to prepare a National Intelligence Estimate parroting what Cheney had been saying about the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat from Iraq, they saluted and fell to the task. Several of them traced their career advancement to Robert Gates.
Folks like John McLaughlin, who now "doesn't remember" being told about the charlatan source code-named "Curveball" in time enough to warn Colin Powell before he made a fool of himself and his country at the U.N., while the whole world watched. Folks like National Inteligence Officer Larry Gershwin, who gave a pass to Curveball's drivel and similar nonsense; and Alan Foley, who led the misbegotten analytical efforts on the celebrated but non-nuclear-related aluminum tubes headed for Iraq, and fictitious Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger. Folks like the CIA Inspector General, John Helgerson, who bowed to pressure from the White House and from McLaughlin to suppress the exhaustive IG report on 9/11, which is a goldmine of names-of both intelligence officials and policymakers-who bungled the many warnings that such an attack was coming. Folks like the senior intelligence official who told me last month, "We were not politicized; we just thought it appropriate to ‘lean forward,' given White House concern over Iraq." "
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/10642
And here without naming him:
"Also included among the players in 2002 are the obedient national intelligence officer who blessed the insertion of the biological warfare drivel and other nonsense into the NIE, and the manager who supervised misbegotten analytical efforts regarding the non-nuclear-related aluminum tubes headed for Iraq, as well as the reports on Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger reports based on crude forgeries."
http://mideastcenter.org/mcgovern05262005.html
Sounds like McGovern is now saying Foley was behind the idea that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake and was trying very much to prove it. What happened between McGovern and Foley in the past two years to cause this rift?
I don't know what his views were on Arab/Israeli issues during most of his foreign service career. I've just noticed that in the past 3 years he seems to focus more and more on that as the main reason for the administration's intent to go to war. Many of the VIPS members are virulently anti-Israel and that doesn't fit in with Marc Ginsberg or Wilson's earlier interviews and writings.
I suspect we can't take Wilson's foreign postings at face value--during the majority of his career, he focused on Africa and, specifically, gained expertise in mining. He also worked at NSC. His assignment to Iraq--I don't know--I wonder if it was more about his background in mining than interest in Middle Eastern diplomacy. I'm not going to take it as fact that he was actually part of the State Department's foreign service staff.
No, I mean just what I said- the CIA has never confirmed that she was undercover.
An investigation is required by law whether or not a person fingered by the press as a CIA operative is actually undercover or just falsely labeled to bolster a reporter's claims. There's a good reason for this- if no investigation is required in the case of a person who doesn't work undercover for the agency, then the press can simply publicly name anyone they suspect to be an undercover operative and simply wait for the appearance of an investigation to confirm their suspicions, or note the absence of an investigation to know their suspicions were in error. And if the press can do so, then hostile countries can plant press stories to provoke investigations on anyone they suspect may be an operative, or on just about anyone, in the hopes that they might get lucky and expose a real operative.
We'd be foolish if we investigated only real agents- it'd be like painting a huge target on them and anyone they have ever made contact with. It's better for us to react to all press 'outings' in the same fashion so as to leave people guessing.
We know she was undercover when she started because it was revealed that she was a Career Trainee--
According to whom?
all Career Trainees are undercover and typically will be undercover throughout their careers, no matter what job they have.
All 'career trainees' make the grade? I don't think so. And once exposed, or suspected of being exposed, we would have to assume they've been compromised for all time. We cannot trust such a person with the task of running assets or being someone's case officer because that would endanger the asset. Hence no undercover status for Plame past Agee if she was thought to be compromised at that stage.
Also, all employees stationed overseas are undercover.
You mean a janitor who once worked at Langley would be undercover if he ever obtained summer employment in the UK? We have no way of knowing when Plame entered the employ of the CIA, or if she was in its employ at the time she was overseas, assuming she was overseas. Nor do we know when she was stationed overseas, or which employer 'stationed' her there- Brewster Jennings, the CIA, or Walt Disney productions. We are told by Wilson that he met her in DC, not overseas.
I'm open to adding sourced dates of her alleged travels to the timeline though, if anyone has them. While I have dates on Wilson, I don't have overseas dates on her yet.
If she became an open employee some time between coming back to the states and the Novak article being written, that's possible. I tend to doubt it--anyone could take one look at her file and see that she was an open employee and that would be the end of it.
Obviously not anyone could look at her file if she was covert, and those who could, cannot publicly reveal what they saw. Her status would be classified were she undercover and all people would draw from a file request is a blank stare or thenonclassified parts of her file.
Also, there is the matter of the investigation being about much more than her alleged outing. There is the question of her outing of her 'CIA front company' in that donation to Al Gore's campaign, according to a source I don't put much faith in- Mr. Pincus of the Wash Post. That donation was made, from what I understand, after Wilson had to withdraw another to keep within election laws. Essentially his rejected donation was redirected through her.
Remember that Fitgerald said the investigation has taken a turn, a change in direction. That alone explains why it continues. And for those looking into the case, there's some interesting connections that would seem to beg further investigation considering that this may be a conspiracy case- recall the Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Memo which referred specifically to Niger.
There's no voodoo in determining your status--you are or you aren't.
There is some secrecy involved though. The CIA isn't going to confirm it or deny on request like some kind of Pavlovian dog.
I just don't see how any of this could have proceeded past the first minute of the first accusation if she wasn't undercover
I do for reasons stated above. We can't wave a red flag of confirmation or denial every time someone is tagged as an operative. We'd be doing our enemies' a huge service.
--that's something the administration could determine with a phone call.
No one said the administration didn't confirm it. The question is whether or not someone leaked it.
In addition, all of her coworkers would know one way or the other if she was open or covert.
I must point out that in order for her coworkers to remain employed or out of jail they would have to keep their mouths shut either way so as to keep our enemies wondering.
If she turns out not to be an undercover employee, there's something seriously wrong with this prosecutor, this administration, the Justice Department and anyone else involved--it shouldn't take two years and millions of dollars just to find out she wasn't undercover. There's just no way.
No, there would be something wrong if the prosecutor, administration and justice department officially jumped to confirm or deny every time some presstitute gets inquisitive about the identity of a real operative. It's better to leave everyone wondering, or make them go on wild goose chases. even if it costs money.
In this saga take note- the only 'covert operatives' on any kind of mission in the Niger/Wilson/Plame saga were the Iraqis who made inquiries in Niger and Joe Wilson himself.
Plame by all accounts was manning a desk, hosting July 4th parties for the press, leaking claims of being agent 99 to a boyfriend, showing up for photo shoots. Not very professional, is it?
The idea of McGovern knowing Foley before VIPS is interesting. I wouldn't take McGovern's word for it that he worked with Foley, though. I regard everything McGovern says as suspect, and at this point I take even the assumption that he actually worked for CIA as a question mark. Since you've looked into him a bit, have you seen anything from sources that substantiate his relationship with Foley or other items on his resume?
I've considered the possibility of Wilson's trip starting legitimately off and on as I've researched this, but at this point I see too many things weighing in the opposite direction--some major ones being Wilson's attempt to cover up his wife's role in arranging the trip, the dispute over whether the trip was authorized by CIA, the haste with which Wilson reached his conclusions, the fact he was publicly opposed to action against Iraq before he made the trip (which incidentally doesn't fit with his contention Bush was trying to fix the intelligence: if that were the case, why not send someone known to be pro-war instead of antiwar?), his vested business interests in opposing action against Iraq, and his echoing of a French propaganda operation that had begun prior to his trip. I'm inclined to think he didn't comment on the "16 words" in interviews immediately after the SOTU because he and his coconspirators were initially working behind the scenes through articles citing or drawing from anonymous leaks, such as Joby Warrick's March 8, 2003 article "Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake", Walter Pincus' March 18, 2003 article "Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq", and Seymour Hersh's March 31, 2003 article "Who Lied to Whom?" Precisely what prompted the timing of Wilson's public outing I'm not sure, but I notice it coincided with the British investigation into the Andrew Gilligan leak, so I'm wondering if that had something to do with the timing.
I need to log off, so I will check back with the thread tomorrow. Thanks again for sharing the links and thoughts. I will ponder the McGovern-Foley thing you noticed and see if I can find anything more on the prehistory of VIPS. I have a suspicion Philip Agee's Organizing Committee for a Fifth Estate network is in the background of it.
Bump that!
[I] piasa [/I] --An investigation occurs when the agency requests one of the Justice Department. Only about half of those requests will go forward from that stage to be investigated. When I say "anyone" can look her file, I mean that anyone investigating this--it will be yes or no, there's no analysis to determining status.
Larry Johnson and several of her coworkers have revealed in interviews that she was a Career Trainee. This is a certain career "track". All CTs are undercover. Once compromised, of course she would not be doing work that would endanger other employees, foreign sources or operations. That doesn't mean she's no longer undercover. She could be an analyst and still be undercover. She could never do another super secret thing in her life and still be undercover. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act only applies to a segment of the undercover staff--that's where the analysis and investigation comes in. Was she part of that segment? The Ames outing makes it pretty unlikely.
All employees of the CIA stationed overseas are undercover. According to coworkers, she entered the CT program in 1985. I believe Wilson and Plame met overseas--I thought I read somewhere that Joe Wilson said they met in Turkey.
I don't know if she used her front company improperly--haven't looked into that. It's feasible, though, that she used it as instructed.
I think there's a lot of confusion about all the terms that are floated out there in reporting--covert, undercover, clandestine, operative, agent, etc. I think reporters just use a bunch of terms to mix things up in their writing. There aren't all these distinctions. You are open or undercover. It's not determined by your job. You can sit at a desk in Langley your entire career and be undercover your entire career.
I agree about taking what McGovern says with a grain of salt. I know that I initially noticed McGovern and Foley were Soviet analysts during the same time period and that's what first made me connect Plame and Wilson with the VIPS. Then McGovern came out with some article or letter stating that he knew Wilson and Plame.
I've seen Wilson's attempts to cover his wife's involvement as central to what they initially were trying to do with this--blame Cheney for cooking intel. All of the initial emphasis was placed on Cheney's office knowing those 16 words had been disproven. They had to downplay his wife's involvement in sending him to say that Cheney was the one who sent him. The ultimate goal was to get Cheney to resign and ensure he wouldn't be around a second term to continue his neocon agenda.
I'm not sure why he would come back and report that there were at least two contacts he spoke with who said they had been approached by Iraqis regarding yellowcake--I can't find other evidence during that time period that he'd begun the anti-war, anti-Israel rhetoric at that point.
By March 2003 he'd begun to act as the anonymous source, but before that, so it seems that somewhere in that February to March 2003 time period is when he decided to put the story out there. I just don't get the impression that Wilson is anywhere near the mastermind in this. But then again, I don't have much to go on about him before 2002.
I'm going to keep trying to find something on why McGovern had an about-face on Foley. I've suspected some sort of rift in the group because we haven't heard that much out of them, but I also wondered if they were laying low after Wilson was exposed last summer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.