"There are hundreds of other agents who don't deserve that kind of treatment,,,"

Then they'd best out the ones who do, because no one else can. Or do you think having the likes of Plame in the CIA contributes ANYTHING to the safety of this country?

Richard,

Which part of "Including getting fired? But of course" did you not understand?

In firefighting, they talk about this concept of starting a small controlled fire to control the direction and depth of a bigger fire. I wonder if thats what is going on here. Let me explain:

We know that the President hates leaks of any sort for any reason. I also know that the fallout of this action is that no one in the White House from the Chiff of Staff to the landscapers will ever answer anything from the press again. If the white house press corp calls out "its a nice day", they are likely to hear a brusk "no comment" from now on in return.

For a press corp that makes its living off of leaks, finding out that the tap has been permanently shut off is hard news to take, and I suspect a big part of the anger behind their feelings now. I dont believe for a second that most of the press corp cares about outing the CIA. They make no bones about doing that sort of thing all the time and recently outed an entire CIA front company, risking many pilots and operatives lives in the process.

Washington will feel the effects of this case long after its over, and its the press, not the administration that will feel the worst of it.

I find myself wondering if this is exactly the effect the President wished to get from the whole process, creating a sort of controlled burn in advance of bigger fires later(the inevitable second term scandal for example).

Im on record as saying it, so its nothing new or controversial and not based one way or the other on steves level headed take on things, but I just dont get the whole 'plame affair' from start to finish. Im sorry, its just goes right over my head.

I just want to know,in fact the only thing ive ever wanted to know about this case is who's the genius who approved sending a Democrat political hack like wilson to Nigeria, ( whos report was excoraited by the way), to do any sort of intelligence work? Isnt this precisely what we have "covert agents" for? Ive never understood why we needed to send anyone at all, much less a dumbass like wilson. Why not send plame herself?

I wouldnt let wilson set up my projector for a presentation, much less go somewhere overseas and act for the office of the president in representing the country.

Stephen, getting fired may not be good enough.

The MSM would not have tolerated the hijinks of the 2002-2004 CIA faction that was trying to tilt the election to Kerry had the parties been inverted. I agree with everything you wrote, but what you and others must understand is that NOBODY is at CIA to be a partisan hack. If everyone maintained the standards of Caesar's wife, kept their eye on the ball and understood that like the military they are there to execute policy not create it or shape it there would be NO problem.

The crisis that led to this likely "being the solution" that Rove ostensibly settled on is that the MSM not only tolerated this behavior at the Farm they cultivated it. They and the elements at Langley that thought they could tilt our policy are more to blame for the crisis than Rove or Bush. Plame engaged in behavior that was at a minimum unethical and the press knowingly allowed the spreading of hubby's bullshite.

CIA IS nuetered compared to the glory days before the moonbats nuetered it in my youth, but NO agency is granted the power to subvert the will of the American people as expressed through their election of representatives and the President.

THAT was the stakes that Plame, Wilson, and the other rogues at CIA were engaging in in trying to "thwart Chimpy McShrub". If the CIA did not feel the need to correct Bill Clinton's mischaraterizations of Kosovo and the Sudanese medicinal plant why not? If the answer boils down to the MSM and liberal elements in the Farm preventing it, perhaps CIA needs dismantled as at that point it is "just another moonbat colony".

Better for us to go blind than pretend that a biased serpent who is more concerned with domestic politics than executing the people's foreign policy through intel acquistions, analysis, and operations is genuine in "protecting us".

CIA's behavior this last election was shameful and had the shoes been on the other foot we would have been assured in pious tones "we are witnessing a coup!"

If Rove broke the law he should be gone, barring that Sandy Berger's pants are less ethical than Rove.

That's all well and good, but how about a whole flood of leaks that began with Dana Priest, of the
Washington Post, that named companies and aliases of contract
personnel on the 'renditions front'. This moved over to the Times reporter, just a month ago;
which provoked a CIA investigation;
covered by Tracy Wilkinson of the
LA Times, and Victor Simpson of the
AP, that has revealed the entire team involved in rendering a dangerous Imam, of European streets
(does that seem relevant, right about now)and thanks to another
crypto-anarchist, has exposed that
officer's family. I won't even elaborate on the breaches by Jason
Vest of the American Prospect, &
Nation, regards the entire top
operations staff of Director Goss's
office.

I am afraid that I still don't get your point. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of CIA employees who are not covert. In my lifetime, I've known a couple. They live, and operate, in the broad light of day. When you ask them where they work, they don't get a shifty look and then say "the company", they simply reply "the CIA" or "Langley", and then proceed to complain about mileage reimbursements. If one of them were to be involved in a bit of palace intrigue and get criticized for it, that would not be not "outing", nor would it be detrimental to the national security. In fact, to create some artificial sort of immunity for these people would only be to give them carte blanche to intrigue for their own personal political views without the restraint that normal persons would normally feel.

It comes down to this: not all CIA employees are covert, nor are they agents. Some are just bureacrats working a desk job at Langley, which is what I understand is the case with Valerie Plame. Frankly, if it weren't, her husband would never have been sent on the mission to Niger, and/or would certainly have been constrained from writing editorials about it when he returned. None of his behavior is consistent with the idea of his wife being an agent and/or covert and/or protected under the relevant statutes.

So to sum up: when there is no covert status, it's OK to refer to a CIA employee as such. That's why the statute is written the way it is.

To interpret it more broadly than that would probably be more detrimental to national security in the long run than the current situation.

What I care about, first and foremost, is the security of this country during time of war. By extension, I care about our intelligence services being able to do their jobs. By further extention, I care about our intelligence officers not having to fear public reprisals.

I agree.

However, there is an important qualifier to that agreement.

Intelligence officers who want us to trust their discretion and judgement have to put the interests of the US first and foremost. This is inherent in the job.

Joe Wilson was advising the Kerry campaign. That doesn't make him someone deserving the considerations extended to those invovled in intelligence work, it makes him a partisan political operative.

His wife appears to be a real intelligence operative- albeit one who's cover was thought to be blown by Aldrich Ames, and she was withdrawn from the field long before the trip to Niger.

I agree that keeping the identity of covert agents confidential is extremely important. I have a difficult time understanding why Mrs. Plame is still considered a covert agent, why revealing the identity of someone who's cover was already blown is a reprisal, and why anyone who considered themselves a covert operative would voluntarily participate in a Vanity Fair photo shoot.

Considering how her husband contradicted what he said in the NYT op-ed when he was under oath before Congress, and his connections to the Kerry campaign, I think it is likely that this is a manufactured scandal intended to make Bush look bad.

If his wife's covert cover was a real factor, why was Joe Wilson playing fast-and-loose with the publicity and the facts?

Unfortunately, the title of CIA analyst seems to have taken on a sense of an operational oxymoron.
These same folks that we need to find our next enemy before they do their worst, are also the same folks that lead to the conclusion that, in the words of David Kay, "we were all wrong."
Kay explained that many of these analysts, when confronted with the actual on the ground facts, simply said that they hadn't thought of it that way.
This failure of imagination is also what prevented any efforts to deal in advance with 9/11.
While I don't feel that these folks need any unfair impediments, I don't and won't give them a free ride either.
Joe Wilson should have known that going public with his CIA adventure to Niger, that was in part due to his wife, would eventually bring her to the fore. The only other explanation is that he had a failure of imagination.

I applaud the laser focus on security, but that's why I still consider this issue about nothing, except possibly exposing Wilson's fatuous unreliability when on expenses. Plame was a known analyst whose name wasn't more private than Tenet's. If she shutterbugged with Wilson, gave interviews, and allowed him to publicize her while she really believed it compromised the security of our nation or our allies, it's criminally bad judgement. But I don't believe she thought that, because, now, it's her work product, not her that we're hiding.

Even if all the players involved are guilty of spinning or downright lying, my real problems (like others here) are 1) the press' scoop-fever and GWB-hatred that repeatedly finds them, in wartime, exposing operational details of our intelligence and 2) the intra-agency and interagency bloodsport that currently characterizes our intelligence services and which must also be stopped for all our sakes.

"We clear?"

Apparently not. I think it's just hilarious when a 'libertarian leaning' W supporter gets a little off message and the more ideologically pure step in to help him see the error of his ways.
When in worry, when in doubt, just remember that anything that looks bad from the W administration is a plot by people who hate Bush. Just repeat it often enough, and you'll believe it too.

Hey, Michael, does this sound at all familiar?

When in worry, when in doubt, just remember that anything that looks bad from the Clinton administration is a plot by "the vast right-wing conspiracy". Just repeat it often enough, and you'll believe it too.

Irony is wasted on the left.

Stephen, if you're worried about outing undercover agents, you should have been calling for the head of Patrick Leahy, senator from Vermont who went directly from a senate intelligence briefing to a news conference where he repeated secret intelligence to reporters and caused the death of Klinghoffer and who knows how many others.

Leahy was persona non grata in the Clinton White House, so you can imagine just how vile the man is. Yet he's still in there flapping his mouth and no member of the media or the senate ethics committee and in fact few citizens care enough to call him in it. He's been re-elected since then and I doubt his Republican opponent, if he had one, ever brought it up.

Ann Coulter gets it:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050713.shtml

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Clear?

"There are hundreds of other agents who don't deserve that kind of treatment - but who may now fear it." -- Stephen Green

They have notthing to fear from Rove. From all accounts he's a clever, but straight shooter.

Any covert agents have more to fear from the so-called major media than from the Bush White House.

And, lest we forget, Plame was not, repeat NOT, covert during the time frame of this kerfuffle's interest. Indeed, her employment by the CIA was in the open then.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

The CIA is also filled with partisan hack liberals who often put the countries security BEHINd their own selfish lust for destroying a sitting President.
(...and with help from their darlings in the media)

"Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover."

--Coulter.

Nightingale, Clinton brought about a lot of his own problems. And I disliked a lot of what he did, I just found him preferable to the alternatives or his staunchest enemies.

But then minimally complex and non-partisan thought is beyond the right ....

Michael, I'm up for some minimally complex thought. What is it about Clinton that makes you prefer him to alternatives (define please, who or what are these alternatives) or his stanchest (sic) enemies (please tell us, who are they?)?

Here are some rather more complex thoughts of my own:

Clinton policies led up to 9/11 and its aftermath. He decimated and politicized the military, the FBI and other intelligence gathering agencies, including the CIA. The current flap over the alleged outing a covert CIA agent is a direct result of these policies and comes from an agency rife with people who have been taught that they know better than chimpmonkeybushhitler and will do anything to have him impeached so as vindicate their hero, Clinton's impeachment which the media continue to wrongly claim was about sex.

It wasn't about sex, it was about lying to a grand jury. Isn't it ironic that the same media and Democatic politicians that thought it was okay for Clinton to lie in front of a grand jury then, are calling for Rove's scalp now. They not only want him fired for the crime of talking to reporters, they want him in jail. Yet none called for Leaky Leahy to be jailed for his actual leaks of classified material.

The list of Clinton's wrong doings is too long for a comment box, but among them are the sale of top secret weapons and missiles to China, the bribery of obvious nuclear threats like Iran and North Korea, and appeasement, if not, tacit approval of Islamic terrorists. He crowned his time in office with the last minute pardons of felons, drug dealers, child molesters and global financier tax evaders.

In time, the world will have come to its senses and political correctness will have been denounced for the pervasive plague that it is and the truth of the 20th century will be written. At that time Clinton will be revealed as the most corrupt and self-serving person who ever sat in the Oval office. It is truly a miracle we survived those eight years.

Well, as a civil servant, I know that if I want to keep my job, I stay out of the public view because if I do something incredibly stupid that makes my bosses look bad, I will get fired.

As a civil servant, I am not allowed to be active in politics. If I choose to do so anyways, it is at my own peril. If I choose to make myself an opponent to the agenda of my superiors, I run the risk of getting fired.

Valerie Plame/Wilson appears to have been an opponent of the President's position that aggressive action was needed against Iraq. She played a role in having a sympathetic figure (her husband) given the assignment of verifying information supportive of the administration's position. He does the job and gives a report. He then publishes an errant version of his report in the media in order to do harm to the Administration.

Plame was using the resources of her office to sabotage the Administration's policies. This is unacceptable and unethical (and possibly even illegal). If I am a classified civil servant and I go public with false allegations against my bosses, I deserve to get fired.

Karl Rove was trying to let Matt Cooper know that something was fishy about Wilson. Rove was trying to let Cooper know that Wilson was NOT an agent of the administration. Perhaps it would have been better if he had not identified "Wilson's wife" as the person responsible for giving the assignment to Wilson. But SHE brought this down on herself.

Civil servants who stay out of the public eye, and don't take an active part in embarrassing their superiors don't have anything to worry about. Valerie Plame/Wilson is not the rule; she is the exception.

Rosignol,

Irony is wasted on the stupid, as evidenced by your own inability to disentangle yourself from low partisan hackery. Indeed, that members of both the left and right are content to parrot talking points rather than think for themselves is not irony at all, but mere proof that none need be taken seriously.

"Clinton will be revealed as the most corrupt and self-serving person who ever sat in the Oval office. It is truly a miracle we survived those eight years."

What's this I hear about Bush derangement syndrome? Theoretically responsible adults who think up and or parrot lines like this pretty well some of the 'staunchest foes' part.

In answer to your first question, I thought Clinton was a marginally better choice as president in 1992 and 1996 (neither Bush I nor Dole would have been awful, but I thought that Clinton would be better, if I were grading the Clinton presidency it would be on the border of C+/B ).

Very thankfully I was not in the US for the entire impeachment fiasco, but it didn't seem like it was about either sex or perjury.

For the record I don't hate Bush II, but I didn't vote for him and I don't think he's doing/done a very good job (C-) and I don't see much prospect for change, he's a better candidate than administrator and he and many of his supporters mistake pleasing rhetoric for follow through. He's also a little too thin-skinned for a job that generally requires a rhino's hide.

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about Plame-gate. I don't like a lot of what the CIA has done in places like Latin America so I'm not going to pretend I've always been a fan.
I think of Rove the same way I think of Dick Morris (an alien life form masquerading as human to learn our ways) so I won't shed any tears for him if he falls, big time.
I do wonder what his absence would mean for the running of the country and find myself pleased at contemplating that.

Michael,

I assure you I am a political junkie with all the time in the world on my hands, and I have never heard of the "Bush derangement syndrome."

Nor do I know what the following means: "Theoretically responsible adults who think up and or parrot lines like this pretty well some of the 'staunchest foes' part." Who are these faux-adults and what lines are they thinking up or parroting?

You don't think Clinton's impeachment was about sex or perjury! Okay, what was it about then?

However, let's not swell on that, why not favor us with some specifics. Bush isn't doing a very good job. In what way?

You've saved the favorite leftoid stock in trade, the big guns, ad hominum attacks, for the finale.

Tell us why you think Morris and Rove are alien life forms and not just fellow human beings with whom you may differ politically, but who are nevertheless of a species native to the planet earth.

Clinton was a mostly okay president. I don't think great, but okay.
If you aren't aware of the mini-publishing industry accusing him and his wife of everything except masterminding the tsunami and the Manson murders, then you weren't paying attention.

Clinton's impeachment was a manifestation of raw political hatred because the people doing it thought they could get away with it.

Some wit in the blogosphere came up with "bush derangement syndrome" attributing to Bush critics the same kind of hatred toward Bush that had been directed toward the Clintons.

I think I described in general terms the problems with Bush's administration syle. Do you think he has good administrative and follow through qualities? Certainly your right.

Morris and Rove both favor the political fight and knifing a rival more than anything (I'd put Carville in that pack too). I'm an equal opportunity disliker of political spin operatives. I tried to show that thru a hyperbolic metaphor. Since I have to explain that I did not mean that literally, I'm sure that further discussion would do neither one of us any good.

Michael:

In September 1998, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton guilty of civil contempt of court after he gave false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Wright fined Clinton $90,000. Was this for no reason at all? Did the judge do this because she "thought she could get away with it"?

In April 2001, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Do you believe that these actions took place because "the people doing it thought they could get away with it"?

In October 2001, Clinton was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling that prevents him from arguing a case before that venue for the rest of his life. Again, do you believe this was for no reason at all?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. From the AP:

"Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case."

Since you spent some of your time here belittling others for their ignorance ("But then minimally complex and non-partisan thought is beyond the right ...."), I think it's useful to remind you that repeating this conspiratorial talking point is making you look foolish.

Ya'll don't get your knickers all in a knot over this. It ain't over til the fat lady (Grand Jury) sings, and she hasn't sung yet.

Update: Go to the www.gop.com website for a detailed chronology of events regarding the Wilson affair.

It is hard to "out" someone who apears in her husband's resume online, and who was a part of the Washington social scene with her husband.

This much ado about nothing, and wishful thinking on the part of the Dems. Plame should be indicted for playing partisan politics while employed by the CIA.

pianoman, read all of my involvement in this thread (again, if necessary)

and you just wrote how much about clinton? and _I'm_ pathetic?

TO: hugh
RE: Can't Be Fired

"Well, as a civil servant, I know that if I want to keep my job, I stay out of the public view because if I do something incredibly stupid that makes my bosses look bad, I will get fired." -- hugh

It's VERY difficult to fire a member of the civil service. I know. I tried. Other people I know have tried too.

As my Father used to say, "A civil servant is like an Atlas [ICBM] missile. It won't work and you can't fire it."

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Michael:

I didn't say you were pathetic. I'm just obliterating one of your talking points.

Sorry you took that personally.

pianoman. nice fisking.

The left cannot understand the basic difference between calling an argument foolish and calling the arguer a fool.

A covert operative is deserving of all of the protections the government can provide.

That doesn't mean the government is responsible should someone lose their cover through irresponsible acts of their own doing.

Valerie Plame effectively outer herself when she chose to inject her husband, clearly a partisan hack, into the CPDs proceedings thus politicising the outcome.

When an agent endagers her own covert status by acts not directly related to her covert function she is taking an unecessary risk and potentially endangering others she may have had contact with.

Covert status cannot be used as a shield for partisan political acts.

What is it about dimocrats and their continual quest for praetorian status?

Weird stuff. Not to disturb the hard-right worldview here, but just one little question:

If Plame was misbehaving, wasn't the correct way to deal with that for Bush to pick up the phone and tell Tenet to fire her ass?

That would've had the nice bonus effect of not blowing her cover and of protecting whoever interacted with her or shared her cover company.

I mean, Bush *is* the president. It's not like the Republicans are some hearty yet persecuted minority in our government.

Stephen — Perhaps I missed something. I got from your text following that quote that you were concerned legitimate agents would be worried about being publicly exposed.

But the Democrats already have that well in hand. Remember their lionization of Phillip Agee? Or Senator Leahy having to resign the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Both got American overseas operatives killed for domestic political advantage.

... the nice bonus effect of not blowing her cover....

The point it appears you're missing is that Plame didn't have a cover to blow. She'd been out of the "covert" business for 7 years.

I like your blog a lot but disagree with the thrust of your position.

"Here is Joseph Wilson himself, talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN today: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_10_corner-archive.asp#069625

Given what Wilson was saying at the time and the destructiveness of it, not to mention the falsehoods and false implications, I'd like to get a better idea of what you think the White House should have done instead. Is there a scenario in which the White House could defend itself from this kind of nonsense without Plame's name eventually coming out into public?

Even if they simply tried to rebut what he said, wouldn't somebody (even a reporter from the MSM) have eventually asked, "Gee who recommended this guy for the Niger assignment"? Didn't Wilson's own making a public spectacle of this make the release of Plame's name inevitiable? How could he possibly keep this secret when he started blabbing to the NY Times and any human being carrying a microphone?

Steve - Rove didn't leak anything.

"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." - Joseph Wilson

And now the latest news is that Rove wasn't the original source, and that he merely confirmed Novak's story.

Which explains why the White House stood firm in the face of all the hysterical screaming by the MSM. It also explains why everyone was in such a hurry for Bush to fire Rove....in effect, to get rid of The Grand ChessMaster before the truth actually came out.

Once again, the Dems are left holding the bag. And the MSM loses more street cred.

It wasn't a crime because she wasn't covert. And Rove didn't commit it because the journalists informed *him*, not the other way around.

So the worst they've got is:
Rove didn't NOT commit a crime.
And he shouldn't not escape punishment for it.