McIlheran Watch: I think I'm owed an apology

by folkbum (UPDATED below)

I'd like to see Patrick McIlheran spin his way out of this:

An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003. [. . .]

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

McIlheran's not the only one, of course, who sputtered and blustered for the last three years that Valerie Plame was not covert, and, therefore, Scotter Libby was railroaded. But his bluster was plenty loud, and loaded with falsehoods (and how!).

He seemed bothered that I insisted on accuracy. But I do, and when last we left the matter, he not only seemed convinced that Scooter Libby did nothing wrong (though Libby admitted to giving Plame's name to reporters), but that Plame wasn't really all that covert. Let's see if he corrects the record.

UPDATE: I should add this:

Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. [. . .]

Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions." [. . .]

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President."

McIlheran and his ilk have been insisting for three years that the Libby case, the whole investigation into who leaked a CIA agent's name to the press and why, has been pointless. But here it is clear both that the investigation was necessary and that Libby's obstruction made it more difficult (as obstruction often does) for FItzgerald to get to the bottom of what happened. To suggest now that he was a scapegoat, or that he should be pardoned, is ridiculous.

Your White House Lied To You, episode #7,629

by folkbum

October 1, 2003:

[About the leak of Valerie Plame's identity to the press] There is a process that the administration has in place to address the leak of classified information. Make no mistake about it, the President has always held the view that the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And the process was followed.

March 16, 2007:

WAXMAN: Federal regulations require that any person who has knowlege of the loss or compromise of classified information has an obligation to report to the the White House Security Officer...Are you aware if there has been any investigation that ever took place in the White House about the release of this classified information?

[James] KNODELL [Director of the White House Office of Security]: I am not. [...] I don't have any knowledge of an investigation within my office.

WAXMAN: Because the President said he was investigating this matter, was going to get to the bottom of it. You're not familiar that any, you're not aware that any investigation took place?

KNODELL: Not within my office, sir.

Tune in next week when, jeebus help us, we almost certainly have another episode in our continuing series, "Your White House Lied To You."

Novak, Plame, DiGaudio, and the Lies that Won't Die

I am not an expert on the "Plame-Gate" mess. I mean, I hardly write about it at all, and when I do, it tends be lame comparisons to TV shows.

I am, however, an expert on beating back the lies and distortions of Wisconsin bloggers, since, you know, someone has to do it.

When Bob Novak published his column this week, he finally spilled some of the beans about what he--conspicuously silent for years--has been up to in the much-scrutinzed case surrounding the outing of CIA agent Valerie (Plame) Wilson, whom Novak named in another column way back in July of 2003. The Nov-ster was the first to print her name and note that she was a CIA analyst, a revelation--combined with his later naming of the front company she supposedly worked for--that jeopardized work on Mid-East weapons of mass destruction.

The new column provides some new information--the name of two of three of his government sources--but most of the info is stuff that even casual observers of the Plame Game have probably already heard. For example, there's the fact that he claims to have learned Plame's name from Who's Who in America. Fine; I'm willing to believe that his unnamed Bush Adminisration source told him that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA--the same CIA that sent Wilson to Niger where he learned that Administration claims of Iraq trying to buy yellowcake uraium were false, and that the infamous "16 words" in Bush's 2003 State of the Union were misleading at best. At which point, Novak flipped open his copy of Who's Who in America to the Wilson section and saw this (.pdf), which does in fact list Wilson's wife by her maiden name, Plame.

The problem is not, of course, that Novak put Plame's name in his column, nor even that he identified her as Wilson's wife. None of those things were secret. The problem is that her status as a covert operative for the CIA was a secret, and the revelation of her name--as well as Novak's subsequent naming of the front company she worked for--blew the cover of one US operation to stop the proliferation of WMD in the Middle East. (In the post below, I opted for a bad example of the Bush Administration interrupting one of its own investigations for partisan political purposes in the AQ Khan case; I could have used this one.)

Whether or not you buy the Who's Who story, one thing is clear: The book does not say Plame was a CIA operative, no matter what FOX News commentators might say.

And, of course, the Right Cheddarsphere is not far behind. From Peter DiGaudio, Wednesday:

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak admits he learned that Plame, husband of noted Bush basher and Democratic operative Joe Wilson, was an analyst for the CIA from Wilson’s entry in Who’s Who in America.

That’s right. Who’s Who in America, not some nefarious plot by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to “out” a covert agent in retaliation for Wilson’s activities. [. . .] In short, much ado about nothing.

Did you catch that? In complete contravention of what Novak actually said--as well as in complete contravention of the facts of the case--Peter dismisses the whole Plame affair as "much ado about nothing" based on the untrue assertion that Who's Who had outed Plame, not Novak. That's right; despite the fact that Plame was unquestionably covert, and that her neighbors didn't even know she worked at the CIA, Peter (and, apparently,a FOX News commentator) believes that she and Joe Wilson were so stupid as to have noted it in Who's Who.

I think this is all part of the undying lie that outing a CIA agent, as Novak did at the behest of his administration sources, is no big deal (much ado about nothing, so to speak). How anyone can believe this, I don't know. All the attempts, even in plain contradiction of the facts, to try to say that she wasn't undercover or at least not deeply, or that Aldrich Ames gave her name to the Russians, or whatever, is to try to make the investigation into how the outing happened seem illegitimate.

Remember that the one idicted person from the investigation so far was not, in fact, indicted for the outing, but for the cover-up; lying to the FBI and prosecutors is a crime no matter what you may be talking to them about. Even if no one is ever indicted for blowing the cover of a CIA agent to the press--and saying that she is "fair game," according to Chris Matthews--there is still something wrong (and suspicious) about an administration-organized cover-up. There's also something creepy about an operation hatched by the vice president (see his hand-written notes here) to get one guy just because that guy speaks out against the adminsitration. That sort of thing shouldn't be happening in this country, whether you think Wilson was right or not in what he said.

One thing I do know, though: Peter DiGaudio is most certainly not right in what he wrote. But, as he said in response to my comments telling him that, it will be a cold day in hell before he admits it.

Fred wants to know about lies

In a post of folkbum-worthy length, RealDebate's Fred is complaining about lies:

I’ve had as much as I can take with the rhetoric coming from the left and the MSM in regards to the President, his Administration and anyone who has an R after their name. What we are hearing is a coordinated effort to distort the truth to the betterment of the Democratic party. They are being allowed to say pretty much anything they want because they are sick, tired and angry about being the minority.

Sometimes what you do not say is just as indicative of your lies as what you do say, we will look at this from a variety of issues and site examples of the lies coming from the left and the MSM.

First, I should tell Fred to check out Peter Daou, both from today and last week, as Daou seems pretty well convinced that the "MSM" is, in fact, rapidly spiraling the other way.

But Fred names a few specific cases. Rather than respond there, where the comments thread is already on tangents and growing relatively hostile, I thought I'd throw out some responses here.

• Fred: If you have read it once you have read it a thousand times. Undercover operative Valerie Plame. [. . .] This much we know. At the time of this “leak” Valerie Plame had not been undercover for at least six years. [. . .] What we find again and again is the Democratic Leadership and the Main Stream Media continue to perpetuate the lie that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative, they also ignore the rest of the story about Plame’s lies and the lies of her husband Joseph Wilson.
  
  They lie to minimize the perception that the leak was an honest attempt to question the since proven side of the story that Joe Wilson’s story, and the way in which he got this assignment were less than on the up-and-up. The leak may [have been] non-intentional, it may [have] been in bad taste, but it was not of an undercover operative.
  
  Truth: (Hey, if Fred can do it, so can I.) Newsweek reports,

  Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

  As for the Wilson's story not being on the "up and up" thing, I don't know specifically what to respond to, so I'll just send Fred here and here for some debunking of the notion that Wilson was not truthful.
  
  
• Fred: It has been argued time and again that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. That in itself is a lie.
  
  First, every major intelligence operative in the world thought Iraq had WMD’s, practically every major Democrat has been heard bloviating from the floor of the House or Senate at some point in their career about Iraq’s WMD’s and how Iraq could not be allowed to keep them. Of course they do not say that anymore that they deem in politically a dangerous position to take. Now they are running from the debate screaming Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied Bush lied, all the while expecting us to turn a blind eye to their positions.
  
  Truth: I've said it before and I'll say it again: The argument about Bush and the WMD intelligence is not that no one but him believed there were WMDs; it's that by the time Bush was making his case to the 'Merkin people, the was new and credible intelligence to suggest that the WMD threat was not what we once believed it to be. The administration chose not to include the new information when it reported to Congress and the UN and other places about what Saddam supposedly had. For example, "It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House." The intelligence presented was flawed--Bush admitted it--but the greater problem is that they knew about the flaws at the time.
  
  
• Fred: I have said from the start of this that [Abramoff] will be a largely Republican scandal, however many Democrats will also be pulled into this. That is a fair statement, you will read no such thing in the MSM or hear it from any Democrat. They think this is a purely Republican scandal. Why? Because it fits their template. Just go ahead and ignore the Senate Minority leader he is nobody..... Right? Not if you are trying to perpetuate a lie of your own.
  
  Truth: What's the grand total of Democrats indicted so far? Zero. Republicans? Two. Even after the AP did its best to smear Harry Reid, for example, there is no there there.
  
  
• Fred: I stopped talking about [domestic spying] at RDW because the lefties were driving me nuts. They have the President tried convicted and impeached on this. The fact of the matter is we do not even know everything on this. You can not believe them though, vetting the facts and determining where powers lie they do not have time for. You see they have an election to win in November, no time for legality, just time to slime. This case is going to take years through the courts because the issue is not really about domestic spying it is about Presidential authority. As usual the left want all of that when they have the office and none of it when they do not. Does this necessarily show a lie, no. This does show an outrageous spin, and the MSM is going with it 100%.
  
  Truth: The president has admitted to breaking a law. Last time that happened, we had an impeachment trial. I'm not advocating for one here, but you can see how there would be a bit of an issue. Fred seems to be saying that the FISA law is unconstitutional, a claim that the administration just isn't making in court the way Fred seems to want them to. Republicans--like our own F. Jim--don't seem interested in holding hearings to really learn "everything." Their spin, in fact, seems to be kind of like sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending they don't see even the other Republicans expressing doubts about whether the program--spying on citizens without a warrant--is appropriate.

I didn't touch all of Fred's points--time and space limitations, and so on--but he also needs to recognize that even if reasonable people can disagree here about what the facts in evidence may mean, no one can argue that they are facts. There will be spin a-plenty from both sides, but to suggest that facts are the same is spin is ridiculous.