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?
[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.