As I said in the comments below, the question can easily be reduced to a legal hypotehtical as we used to call them. Whether a leak occurred is really besides the point. The questions are going to be reduced to the following:

1) Was Valerie Plame really covert. Was it so common knowledge, that it does not really matter how she was classified/positioned/intended. In other words, if you do not protect your secret, it aint your secret--similiar defenses exist in trade secret law and issues related to priviliged communications.

2) Did the leakers know she was classified. Or, it aint no crime without the specific intent to reveal classified information.

Yet, in end of the day, these defenses do not obsfurcate what happened. Does Bush really wants his legacy to be, "not technically illegal?"

I would think that a covver as a wife of a former US Ambassador is not a great cover if any at all.

The allegedly (see Allen, Wapo)super secret name Novak revealed, Plame, is actually listed on two of her husbands online bios (including on a Saudi funded think tank). As Al queda and their ilk seems to be more adept at using the internet than the CIA, being easily found out as the the wife of a former US Ambassador, probably is not the tightest cover I would want to have if I were an agent but maybe I am over cautious. Her identity as an ambassador's wife was as very easy to determine. Assuming that this would not raise issues in a bad guy or gal's mind when Plame was asking WMD related question, once her former ambassador husband goes to Niger and starts asking about WMD as well would probably have set off bells. Then the guy goes and writes an article in the New York Slimes outing himself as a CIA investigator - that had to be the end of any cover she had.

If in fact she was a secret agent using Plame as a cover when it was on her husband's on line bios, then the CIA is truelly screwed up, as is she. If the CIA still considered her coer not blown with the interent references, they had to once her husband reveals in the TImes that he was a CIA investigator. The fact that Plame and/or the CIA let that story go to print, had to violate something - it must have been a CIA smear job of the administaration.

I'm just not sure what the big deal is here. The original Novak column was from July, and the matter has had more than 2 months to simmer. At this point, it seems to me, there's less and less to point to the White House, including Novak's own statement.

Normally Dan seems pretty level-headed, but his early posts on this -- a 2-month old story -- have come close to hysterical, inlcuding a Sunday post (why a Sunday post on a 2-month old story?)

This is perhaps an indication of the downside of blogging -- maybe better to have sat on it for 2 months and a couple extra days.

This is like the old joke about the guy who asked his friend to spy on his wife while he was on a business trip. His friend sees his wife bring someone home, go in the bedroom, and they both take off their clothes. Then the light gets turned out. The punchline is that the guy is disappointed because he still can't be sure whether his wife is cheating on him or not.

John Bruce,

Yes, it was a two-month old story, but two events changed things:

If the latter allegation turns out to be true, what I wrote on Sunday holds.

Hopefully, it won't be true.

If the comments are correct, Ambassador Wilson has posted his wife's maiden name on the internet before the offending Novak column. Also before the Novak column, he announces that he was doing some consulting work for the CIA on the editorial pages of the New York Times.

A person with an elementary knowledge of Google could have figured out that there was some connection between Plame and a guy working on the side for the CIA, before Novak's column. The naturally suspicious types who encounter this lady's name in connection with a discussion about WMDs undoubtedly use Google, and would draw a conclusion that there might be a connection. On the other hand, given Wilson's position as authoritative Bush critic, they might also figure she is some sort of left-wing activist. However, one has to wonder about Wilson's outrage over the whole thing, given his own lack of caution over the matter.

And another thing...

The Washington Post source insists that two top level officials are responsible for the story. How does he know this? Did he hear the two people make the claim? Or is the source just relaying gossip or speculations by Wilson or his friends? Or does the WP reporter know who the sources are because she was one of the folks contacted?

This story probably has a simple answer. But the reporters can't speak the truths they know, and ever get any other hot story.

If someone would only make an anonymous post to some website somewhere...

Of all the odd things about this story, here's one that I haven't seen mentioned. Wouldn't being married to a diplomat (which Joe Wilson was) sort of preclude a woman having a job as a spy? .. I mean, the Ayatollah in Iran, and Saddam (and others I suppose) were always screaming that our embassy people were secretly working for the CIA.
Why would the CIA expose themselves to such a charge by actually having a highly visible person (the diplomat's wife) doing spying?
It doesn't make any sense..

This is just speculation on my part. She was in the field running spies. This meant people could come to her and exchange information in the normal course of business. An ambassador's wife has a lot more high level social and business contact than your normal working person even if they are a "senior consultant".

Just a quick question. If Ms. Plame was in fact covert (as looks now that the FBI is involved) how does anyone know that was her undercover name? Everyone saying that Wilson's bio gave away her identity before Novak did seems to assume as much. Did anyone report that her covert identity was in fact "Valerie Plame?" I would assume she would go by a different name. Hence, the damage would come about when her covert acquaintances connected the face with the name. Also, totally unrelated, how great is the name "Valerie Plame"?

Yes.

Now that the 'crisis' is officially over, we can turn to the comic constructions within it.

First Zionblog and now Jon Brennan have both raised 'the'essentail comic point of the whole farce - The Ambassador's wife is a (sic) spy.

It reeks of Rowan Atkinson's footman :

" Lord Blackadder, I have a cunning plan..."

elliottg:

yeah, but what she did operationally is not the issue -- if she was involved in an intellegence-gathering pipeline, or 'running spies' then she was, in my amateur parlance, a 'spy' ... I would just assume that CIA wouldn't want that exposure --

hmmm.. maybe she got the job after Joe's retirement -- anybody know?

At the risk of peddling old news, I don't think Novak said what everybody thinks he said.
His words identified Plame as a CIA employee BEFORE he said two officials said she was responsible for getting her husband the job.
In other words, the ID as a CIA-nik was not a quote from the officials.
It came from someplace else.
See Clifford May who thought everybody knew it.

From Washington Post:

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

It appears she was covert (is?). She may have done her clandenstine work before she married Wilson. I saw comments that have only been married about 5 years (dont have any confirmation on that).

From comment above:

"2) Did the leakers know she was classified. Or, it aint no crime without the specific intent to reveal classified information."

I would think anyone in the federal government, that works with confidential and secret info, would have a read flag waving in their face when they are discussing an individual that is employed by the CIA and works in WMD field. It would be to the government employees benefit to tread lightly.

While it is possible to let it slip that someone in the CIA is so and so as an aside during a call with Novak. Making calls and disclosing the information to 6 different reporters is definitely intent.

We now know that Plame was covert. Alberto Gonzalez's letter says so explicitly.

I misunderstood what you were asking. I thought you were suggesting that her being a spy was unlikely since everyone wuold already assume she was a spy. This is a line of reasoning I have seen several places. As far as the CIA not wanting to be exposed as using diplomatic postings for their covert operatives, maybe that's why this is such a major league issue. Maybe they made an exception since she was CIA before being married and were never quite comfortable with that compromise.

Dan,

Leaking public record information is neither a criminal or moral offense. We don't have an Official Secrets Act. The pertinent information about Wilson's wife was already in the public record, and Wilson helped put it there, long before the events at issue.

You over-reacted.

The Plame part is really peripheral. The big issue was: who sent Wilson, who read Wilson's report, and did those people read the 16 words in the state of the union.

The effort with Novak was to construct a story that Wilson was sent by Plame, and was separate from Cheney. It was an effort to get Cheney away from Wilson's report. That's "why they did it".

Looks like Mr. Holsinger carries the ball too far. The CIA classifies Plame as covert. Looks like Wilson was not too helpful in maintaining his wife's cover, but that's probably neither here nor there in terms of determining criminal culpability. My guess, is, however, that one of the casualties in this whole mess will be the ex-ambassador's credibility. Considering that he seems to be in the consulting businees, this could prove a problem.

Eric:
lemme get this right.. someone in the White House wants me to believe:

a) Wilson's wife 'sends' her husband to check out the uranium story in Africa, after which:
b) Bush utters the 16 words, then:
c) Wilson rights an op-ed claiming that Cheney sent him and that he found no uranium evidence

from which I am to conclude:

ummmm.... what ? that Cheney was not involved ? I thought that Cheney's involvement was not disputed -- my take was that the White House said : 'we sent Wilson and he came back with no evidence to support the British intelligence, but no strong reason to disbelieve it either, so we went with it ...'

From appalled moderate:

"Looks like Wilson was not too helpful in maintaining his wife's cover, but that's probably neither here nor there in terms of determining criminal culpability."

Have not seen anything in any news stories that anyone (novak, or any other journalist) knew that Plame was CIA prior to Novak letting the cat out of the bag in July. Also have not seen anything in news stories that Wilson outed her prior to Novak.

Anyone else seen anything?

I was referring to my post above. Wilson had his wife's name on cites showing his resume, and had, in the NYT article, announced his connection with an intelligence operation. You can connect the dots by using Google on her name, then using Googleon his name.

here are the online bios:
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html
http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html

Cliff May says the last one is Saudi funded.

A sited above the WashPost says the name "Valerie Plame" was the big deal but it was online linked to Wilson (unless those sites are more recent). A normal assumption is that diplomats and anyone as an embassy is a spy. Either the pages are new or the name Plame is the issue in which case the CIA has to be pretty f***ed up to use as a cover something so transparent.

The small question is the leak.
The bigger question is what the hell is going on a the CIA. How could the CIA use Wilson? Wilson did not even submeit a written report or see the docuemnts he was looking into. The CIA leaks now say that Plame did not recommend Wilson. Still after your husband works for your employer and then writes an article like he did, you would think that that would ruin your career.

My post from last night on this thing is at:
http://israpundit.com/archives/003333.html

I agree with John Bruce and Tom Holsinger above. That was a bizarre freak-out you had on Sunday. It's good that you now quote the Note counselling caution, as you played a big part in the histrionics over the weekend. I lost count of how many times the word "if" appeared in your initial post from Sunday. On the basis of how confusing this whole thing is, and what little is actually, in any conclusive way, known, a good 90% of what's being said even now that everyone has chilled out a tiny bit is pure speculation.
Even in your less extravagant formulation today, you forget to state some of the unproven assumptions you are making.

The formal CIA request to DOJ to investigate -- which the DOJ has now responded in the affirmative -- indicates the seriousness of the incident;

This does indicate the seriousness of the incident, but only insofar as it indicates bitter, internecine struggles between the Arabist/Realist CIA and the neocon White House/Defense Department. It does not indicate that a crime or even a legal misdeed of some sort took place. It only indicates that George Tenet is angry about something.

The Sunday WaPo story had a senior administration official asserting that two high-level White House officials were responsible for the leak.

If the latter allegation turns out to be true, what I wrote on Sunday holds.

There are a lot more "if's" involved than the one you state. For one thing, there has been huge debate as to what all of these terms for all of these anonymous sources mean: "senior administration official", "two high level White House officials" etc. Also, you should add the words, "if there was a leak" because it's only a leak if there was meanginful, secret information to leak (not to mention the fact that the alleged "leak" is only a crime under the statute as I understand if if she was a certain type of agent etc.). No one seems to be able to definitely say what exactly this woman's job was and whether or not it was a secret. Or, I should say, that at this point we have many differening accounts. The fact that her job was blithely, offhand mentioned in the original Robert Novak column, which was not about her at all really, and then was only picked up by a conspiracy-minded Nation essayist, and that now Novak is saying that she definitely is not a covert operative, makes me think that the odds are pretty good that her job was not dangerous or covert.
The really baffling question is why on earth anyone in the White House would send Wilson, this left-wing, anti-war, pro-Saudi guy, to research the Niger Uranium connection. The idea that this is some kind of oblique payback for his thoroughly unconvincing NYT op-ed strains credulity though, because the op-ed was so poorly done, and because the Niger Uranium scandal never had much life outside of various left-wing fever swamps.

Plame did not have a web site identifying herself as a employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Wilson's own public record bio identified her by her maiden name AS HIS WIFE long before any of the events at issue transpired, and there was other public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. I.e., anyone who wanted to dig a bit could have put the two together.

Plame's employment was not confidential information and disclosing it (a) was not a criminal violation of any of the laws of the United States, (b) would not give rise to civil liability under any of the laws of the United States and (c) not even wrong.

I repeat that we don't have an equivalent of the British Official Secrets Act. Classification of public record information does not make that information classified.

Internet 'debates' are like a giant electronic game of post office. The facts are quickly set aside in favor of more attractive memes.
Case in point,

Meme: Novak said senior White House officials told him Plame was a CIA operative.

Quote: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

The remedy for this effect is the ability to include original sources for easy reference. I not only recommend this practice, I demand it if you want me to accept your arguments. Example: Novak's July 14 article that started it all.

Others have pointed out that "Two senior administration officials" covers a lot of ground and could refer to any senior official in the Executive branch. But the next sentence is less ambiguous, "The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

Here we have the CIA telling someone, Novak I assume, that it asked his wife to contact him. This seems an implicit acknowledgment of her intelligence employment. Why else go through his wife unless you already had a connection to her? Why else use the more formal 'contact' rather than 'ask' unless describing the overtures of the larger organization?

The language Novak relates to us implies that the CIA was at least some of the source of his knowledge of Plame's status. And now the CIA asks for an investigation of someone else. We all know the press follows the path of least resistance and greatest potential headlines. Clinton felt this heat, now so does Bush. It is the call of the Pulitzer and the book deal. And you get there by the path that Woodward and Bernstein blazed. The road through the Whitehouse.

So let me make sure I've got this. The alledged leaker would be innocent because Plame's CIA legend was already in the public domain via Wilson's web site and NYT article? So in essence:

The blame for Plame
Falls squarely on her flame

Somebody call Jonnie Cochran.

yo, Israpundit, I read your post 3 times and I still don't understand it (except for the part about the CIA being effed up)

-- do me a favor and explain what you think all this means in 1-2 short paras.

thanks.

Ah, we are now in the "we are interested but we really have no information" stage of a media cycle. So get ready for endless speculation to fill in where information is often conveyed. Oh wait, we are already there. If the DOJ finds nothing then we get to the "Democrats scream coverup" stage. If the DOJ gets someone it will be more and more of this cycle. And then soon it will be incestial bastard of the media cycle: the coverage of the coverage.

Anyway, everyone, take a deep breath. We really have no good info yet. Media reports are conflicting all over the place. Let the dust settle and then we can figure out what was going on and decide what we think of it.

A.W.

"Have not seen anything in any news stories that anyone (novak, or any other journalist) knew that Plame was CIA prior to Novak letting the cat out of the bag in July."

Well there is the testimony of Cliff May, who suspects he's not the only one, and he didn't get it from the WH.

Tom, where is the "other public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency?"

Just curious.

awww, that's no fun!

'We decide, you report' - Mickey Kaus

HH, do you have a link to that May testimony?

Could be because he has some experience with both Iraq and Africa.

This is from a TalkingPoints interview.

(Ambassador Joseph Wilson served in the US Foreign Service
from 1976 to 1998. Among various assignments during that
period he served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the US
Embassy in Baghdad from 1988-1991; acting Ambassador to
Iraq during Operation Desert Shield; Ambassador to Gabon;
and Director for African Affairs at the National Security
Council from 1997-1998. On July 6th of this year he wrote an
OpEd column in the New York Times in which he described a
trip he made to Niger in the spring of 2002 to investigate
claims that the country had agreed to sell uranium to Iraq.

Sorry, that was my post.

You know, while everyone goes on and on and on about who knew what when and who said what to whom, a few facts are perfectly obvious if you stop the (hysterical) presses long enough to think:

1. Novak was told Plame was an operative.
2. Six other reporters were told the same thing.
3. Therefore, these seven people KNOW who the leaker(s) are.
4. If any of them states it publicly, that ends the brouhaha. Of course, outing their source ruins their rep--and coincidentally ends the feeding frenzy that's keeping them employed.
5. If anyone even breathes anything about asking the Seven "who told you Plame was an agent?" the entire press corps goes into "First Amendment Spin Control Indignation Mode" (cry "FASCISM!!").

Conclusion: The press in America is above the law.

That is all. Thank you for your attention.

An unnamed commenter writes:

I would think anyone in the federal government, that works with confidential and secret info, would have a read flag waving in their face when they are discussing an individual that is employed by the CIA and works in WMD field. It would be to the government employees benefit to tread lightly.

And that's assuming this source actually did tell people that Plame was CIA; remember that Novak's original piece did not say his sources told him she was CIA, it said they told him she was behind his being sent to Niger. He added that she was CIA.

While it is possible to let it slip that someone in the CIA is so and so as an aside during a call with Novak. Making calls and disclosing the information to 6 different reporters is definitely intent.

It looks like all we have is that one anonymous person says that another anonymous person called six anonymous people, with information that may have included Plame's CIA status, or may simply have said that she got her husband the Niger gig without mentioning how she'd be in a position to do that.

Here is a May quote where he refers to someone telling him about Plame.
Cliff May on the Plame Game

"It looks like all we have is that one anonymous person says that another anonymous person called six anonymous people, with information that may have included Plame's CIA status,. . ."

Anonymous does not always equate to lie. We have to wait and see.

I will say that all the these people on the Left running around with a hard-on to take down Rove are getting carried away.

Tom, where is the "other public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency?"

Just curious.
Posted by ed at September 30, 2003 01:56 PM

Oh ed, you silly man,
You know, Tom means that Wilson didn't keep his wife's maiden name a secret. And then he went to Niger for the CIA, and wrote about it in the Times. He might as well have put it on a billboard, you see.

Dan,
I think you're on the right side of this, but this is wrong:

Yes, it was a two-month old story, but two events changed things:

* The formal CIA request to DOJ to investigate -- which the DOJ has now responded in the affirmative -- indicates the seriousness of the incident;

This was not a change. The CIA referred this matter to DOJ in July. DOJ did nothing until the CIA essentially went public last week and the media caught fire. That's exactly why this calls for a special prosecutor: they were sitting on it.

Valerie Plame was supposedly an undercover agent. She allegedly used her maiden name (Valerie Plame, rather than Valerie Wilson) while undercover to disguise her identity. Being an undercover agent, she couldn't let anyone know that she was really the wife of an Ambassador -- and therefore clearly connected to the American foreign policy and intelligence establishment. If that were the case, her contacts might not trust her. Right?

Or so the story goes. A little-repeated fact is that if these contacts had Google (or Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, or any other Google-driven site -- and I haven't even checked non-Google ones), they could have found out here, here, here that Plame was the wife of an Ambassador. It is stated in plain English: "Joseph Wilson is married to the former Valerie Plame."

Given how easy it would be to discover that Plame is an ambassador's wife, how much of an additional difference does it make that the world can now find out that she a CIA agent, too?

Bo, You are assuming he was married to her for how long? Don't know that she was ever a ambassador's wife, she may have only been a former ambassador's wife.

Joe Brennan - I think a few people here get it, if you do not. I may not write (or think) clearly. People seem to be worried that now that she it is in the public domain that she works for the CIA, she can not be a spy anymore and any spies she worked with will be in jeopardy. It seems to me that prior to Novak's disclosure, this name was disclosed as the wife of a US ambassador. That alone would have set off alarm bells with any bad guys that she is or has connections to US intelligence. This raises the question, how could the CIA or an operative there uses a name linked to a US diplomat as a cover?

Bo Cowgill writes: "Being an undercover agent, she couldn't let anyone know that she was really the wife of an Ambassador -- and therefore clearly connected to the American foreign policy and intelligence establishment."

Unless she married him after he left the diplomatic corps in 1998, and she concurrently switched from a travelling case officer role to a US-based analyst role with less travel.

Being a globe-trotting covert case officer isn't really the ideal occupation for someone who wants to start a family.
Plame and Wilson apparently have young daughters, possibly twins. I wouldn't want to be lugging twins around Khartoum, while trying to keep a low profile, would you?

So, if I'm right, she'd be a CIA analyst, working in the US, married to a retired Ambassador, also located in the US.

Which is a much lower profile position, and much less likely to cause problems.

If Plame served overseas in a covert capacity in 1998, she's covered by the law against outing covert agents. It doesn't matter much what she was doing since then, as long as the CIA still was keeping the association secret.

And as I responded to your identical post at CalPundit, Barbara Bush is married to a guy who is not only a former Ambassador, but is also former head of the CIA. And that doesn't automatically make Babs a spook, does it?

Due to the absence of additional facts (observed by most everyone), there seems to be a frenetic need to nail down the known facts. While this may be a good exercise, it may be ignoring the fox that is chuckling to himself through the forest, proud that he has again eluded the hounds.

Assuming this is not the result of a Little League error on the part of someone in the Whitehouse or on Mr. Wilson's part, and assuming there is purpose behind the activity of the CIA/Whitehouse...

How do these puzzle pieces fit together if Plame and/or Wilson is a double agent working for Iraq or Iran or Russia or France or Germany or NK or China?

Again, assuming there is a purpose, what is the logical end/motive?

Wouldn't the CIA and the Whitehouse use a disagreement as cover for working closely on outing a foreign spy, or for tracing connections back to their source.

Where was Plame before her marriage to Wilson?

What were Wilson's assignments in the State Department.

What significant events, if any, happened in the countries where Wilson was assigned preceding or subsequent to any of Wilson's transfers? Bombings, diplomatic expulsions, etc...)

Why would the Saudi think tank post Wilson's bio? Do they list all bios of all State Department officials, ofr only certain ones.

Is the Plame/Wilson affair a story only because someone wanted it to be? (press/Administration/foreign intelligence agencies/Democratic operatives/Martians planning an invasion (ok, probably not that one.)

I have no information to support any of the above. I am not a reporter and while I support the Adminstration, if something illegal was done, someone's head should roll. But as I read the blogs on this story, these are the questions that I have. I certainly don't expect the mainstream media to go find the answers to these questions, as it would require them to take their feet off their desks, grabbing a shovel and hardhat and doing some mining. Dirty work, that.

The blogging community has generally been ahead of the curve on a whole host of issues, but on this one they seem to be stuck in a rut. This is probably the nature of the beast in the sense that "most" bloggers rely on various news reports to pull information together for (well deserved) public scrutiny. In this case, there aren't many stories out there so everything gets recycled on itself.

To be sure, hypothetical analyses can quickly devolve into conspiracies with black helicopters. Apply Occam's Razor and see what comes out.

Wrong, Bo Cowgill. Generally, but not always, the agents that a spy runs will know that the info goes back to the US. Once they find an informant that they want info from, they'll make a proposition like, "We're from the CIA and we'll pay you to work for us." (Read "See No Evil", by Robert Baer)

Everyone, finding out that Valerie Plame is married to an Ambassador does not directly lead to her being a spy. Apparently, she used her maiden name as part of her cover, that doesn't mean her entire cover is based on that. So what if they find out she's married to an ambassador? She wouldn't necessarily have to deny it, just don't advertise it. Finding out Plame is her maiden name doesn't blow her cover. She's not freaking Rumplestiltskin. There's a major difference between writing, "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." and something like "Wilson never worked for the CIA. His wife, Valerie Plame, is an energy consultant."

Tom Holsinger,
SqueakyRat,
Bo Cowgill,

I still haven't seen anything that identifies Valerie Plame as anything other than Wilson's wife. As far as I can tell, being this man's wife does not automatically employ someone at the CIA.

Tom says that there is "other public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency."

No one has shown this to be he case. At least I haven't seen it.

Mr. May says that he heard about Valerie Plames employment from other sources but didn't say anything about it until after the Novak story. This does not qualify as "public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency."

Therefore one can only assume that Novak broke this story to the public and by doing so, someone broke the law.

I think some of you people have been watching too much TV. That Valerie Plame was undercover for the CIA does not mean she was Jennifer Garner in Alias. Spies, especially case officers, don't generally work by passing themselves off as terrorists or arms traffickers or other "evildoers." It's mostly much more prosaic than that. Most of the CIA agents we have in other countries work in US embassies, for God's sake. They're called liaison officers, military attaches, or whatnot. That's their "cover", for what it's worth. Their connection with the US Government is not secret. The secret is what their real jobs are. So this stuff about, "She couldn't have been spy because she was known to be an ambassador's wife" is just uninformed fantasy.

ed --
I was kidding, though I don't the other two were. I doubt this so-called "public record" exists, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Tom Holsinger to provide it.

I mean, "I don't think the other two were." Sorry.

SquekyRat - I think you will agree htat just as liason officers are oftne employeed by Embassies, so to are all employees of embassies generally to be considered spies unless shown to be otherwise (and then still assumed to be). By Wilson puting here supposedly secret maiden name on his bios (The big sin Allen in the WaPos ites yesterday is the use of her maiden name) he created the presumption that she is also government related, i.e, CIA. After he wrote an article in the New York SLimes saying that he did some work for the CIA - wouldn't that have caused any bad guys to be pretty sure that she and anyone she cam into contact with was tainted and caus ehere to be useless in any covert capacity to the CIA?

"The formal CIA request to DOJ to investigate -- which the DOJ has now responded in the affirmative -- indicates the seriousness of the incident;"

This could be due to a lot of things. We do have reason to think there have been disagreements between the CIA and the Bush Administration.

"The Sunday WaPo story had a senior administration official asserting that two high-level White House officials were responsible for the leak."

A single-sourced anonymous quote does not justify near hysterics.

brian writes: "What significant events, if any, happened in the countries where Wilson was assigned preceding or subsequent to any of Wilson's transfers? Bombings, diplomatic expulsions, etc...)"

Well, when he was working for Bush as the last acting US ambassador in Iraq right before the first Gulf War, he "helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound".

President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."

Shocking! Such craven behavior! Apparently that doesn't rise to the standards of honor held in today's Bush administration, where outing a CIA agent is perfectly acceptable - especially if it's a woman.

zionb writes: "wouldn't that have caused any bad guys to be pretty sure that she and anyone she cam into contact with was tainted and caus ehere to be useless in any covert capacity to the CIA?"

Would you say the same of Barbara Bush, wife of a former Ambassador and former CIA chief?

From ed:

"I still haven't seen anything that identifies Valerie Plame as anything other than Wilson's wife."

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents

PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office

We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.

-----------------------------------

The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the Department's investigation. Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the Counsel to the President's office. The President has directed full cooperation with this investigation.

Alberto R. Gonzales

Counsel to the President

Both of these items are referring to Plame. Now, I suppose if ed was being hyper-literal then he expects what? George Tenet to trot out a blown-up graphic of her W-2?

were is all oth this 'breach of national security' stuff coming from. It does not follow from her being or having been covert.

ed says: "Mr. May says that he heard about Valerie Plames employment from other sources but didn't say anything about it until after the Novak story. This does not qualify as "public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency." "

Mr. May also heard this at the same time that the White House was probably making its calls - after Wilson's editorial and before Novak's column.

His source might well be *the* source who told Rove (if Rove was the caller).

He's tight with the PNAC crowd, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, among others.

Which means that Plame's identity isn't necessarily common knowledge. It could just mean May's friends aren't very serious about their non-disclosure agreements.

perhaps she she has undercover status but in fact does not work that way- but as an analyst.

Yes, zionblogster, embassy employees usually are assumed to be spies. But there's a difference between falling under that sort of blanket assumption and being known to be a spy. When you are known to be a spy you're out of the game.

And her "supposedly secret maiden name"? You've got to be kidding. Even if some "bad guys" thought Joe Wilson was a spy because they learn from the New York Times that he did some (non-secret, non-undercover) work for the CIA, they're supposed to conclude that his wife was one too? How about his kids? Or his dog?

sorry anon.poster I guess I wasn't clear that I meant "I still haven't seen anything that identifies Valerie Plame as anything other than Wilson's wife." prior to Novak's article. A number of posters have written that this is the case, that she was in fact outed previously. They haven't shown any evidence to illustrate that however.

John H: I replied to your post at CalPundit, too.

Being the wife of an Ambassador does not make someone a spy. That is obviously correct.

But that isn't the point. The point is: If you had information that you did not want the United States Government to know, would you tell the wife or former wife of a US Ambassador?

Unless you were stupid, you wouldn't. And unless you were extremely careless about this information, you might want to do at least a cursory background check on whoever you're telling.

Simply by typing "Valerie Plume" into Google, you could have placed her as the wife of a US Ambassador. Her cover was already blown. She was already too close to the US intelligence community to be trusted. This could be discovered very, very easily.

I think the marginal damage to national security of this "leak" -- if that is what truly happened -- is really quite small. It didn't tell the world anything it didn't already know. A simply Google search would have revealed the essential information: that Plame is too well connected to the intelligence community to be trusted.

From ed:

"I still haven't seen anything that identifies Valerie Plame as anything other than Wilson's wife."

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents

I believe ed was looking for things available before Novak's column appeared in July.

Responding to SqueakyRat, this is in all the Clancey books, but I agree with you, based on several biographies by non-US spooks, one of which is titled "Tower of Secrets" by an ex-KGB guy and another is titled "Inside the Mossad" (I think), by, guess what, a Mossad agent spying in the US. In both cases they were attached to the embassay. Apparently that's the norm in the spy world, because of diplomatic immunity (you can get caught but not killed). You'll also recall the US ousted several Iraqi 'diplomats' who were alleged to be spys, I can't recall if they were attached to some embassy or another, though.

ed
You caught the nameless one first. Just trying to help!

Bo --
But that isn't the point. The point is: If you had information that you did not want the United States Government to know, would you tell the wife or former wife of a US Ambassador?

Unless you were stupid, you wouldn't.

All true. But the fact is that most intelligence comes from people who, for one reason or another, do want the US Government to know, and collecting it is what agents do. They still have to be undercover to do it successfully without endangering their contacts.

Here's what I want to know: is she hot? I mean, she could even be middle-aged hot, but is she a looker? I'm just trying to think of the book and movie rights, potential celebrity status, things of that nature. "The Adventures of Valerie," sexy Washington-insider/diplomat/spy/power-broker....Talk of ruined careers may be premature...careers made may be more likely. The only pic I've seen had her upper half blurred pretty thoroughly.

I found a NY Times article from August 8 that says this about Ms. Plame "Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is known to friends as an energy industry analyst." It's a for-fee article, aparently, but someone posted it in full (?) here.

In my blog I note the change in the State Department bio of Wilson. In 1992 he's married. In 1997, he's not listed as married.

Bo Cowgill says "A simply Google search would have revealed the essential information: that Plame is too well connected to the intelligence community to be trusted."

I find it funny that in truth, it is Wilson who is too well connected to the intelligence community to be trusted, but, nobody would have suspected until Novak outed his wife as CIA.

I found a NY Times article from August 8 that says this about Ms. Plame "Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is known to friends as an energy industry analyst."

What's your point, Chuck? This article came out three weeks after Novak's column naming Valerie Plame.

HYY stated: We now know that Plame was covert. Alberto Gonzalez's letter says so explicitly.

Do we really? The letter stated:

We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.

You need to read the entire statement not just portions that fit your agenda. I am not saying nothing wrong or illegal happened but some are getting WAY ahead or reading into this story. Relax!

I have to say this all reminds me of Johnny Depp in "Once Upon a Time in Mexico", who in the film *is* in fact a CIA agent, going around wearing a tshirt with "CIA" in big letters on it.

Idea of course being the truth is so blatant nobody would believe it. Now back to the program...

"In my blog I note the change in the State Department bio of Wilson. In 1992 he's married. In 1997, he's not listed as married."

It looks like his first marriage ended after 1992, and he married Plame after 1997.

The 1992 bio says he has two children. His bio at the Middle East place says he has two sons and two daughters.

When he has talked about the leak putting his family in danger, he's mentioned his young daughters, but not his sons; I take that to mean that the sons are adults now.

Ordi --

Do you think CIA doesn't know whether or not she was undercover? DOJ is investigating because the CIA forced their hand by going public last week that they had referred the matter to them in July. Do you think CIA made that "crime report" in July without knowing her status? Relax if you want, but this doesn't look like it's going away.

Squeaky Rat,

The allegations are the disclosure of a person identified as an undercover CIA employee. It does not mean she was. Some in the CIA know nothing of her some know everything about her service. So who are we listening to in the CIA? We don't even know that.

I never said this was going away! My point was let the story happen and stop reading into eveything and stop supposing. Deal with FACTS known. Do we want the DOJ to suppose or do we want the facts? I vote for the facts! How about you? Or is this all just gotcha politics?

What really confuses me, is how any of the people now claiming Plame was a covert operative, a requirement for this to be a scandal, can say with impunity that she was.

Either they don't know this for a fact, or they do and are violating the law so often cited.

All go and read Wilson's Times article -what he did can not really be called intelligence work as he calls it. He gets hired into an area his wife worked covertly by people his wife knows and possible with he recommnedation or 'inspiration'. He reached a conclusion before he did any work. DId a bit of work to confirm it not even interviewing the people mentioned in the docs which he never saw and never gave a written report. Then he goes and writes about it in the times. He says that uranium was never bought (but seems to have reported to the CIA that attempts were made. In the SOTUD, Bush only says that they attempted same as Wilson and Wilson goes off the deep end. Did his wife or the CIA know about this article before it was written? Someone or two or three people are bad in the administration and should be punished - the CIA seems to be wrotten to the core and run like a fraternity. It needs to be cleaned out. When the leak is investigated the whole thing should be investigated including the CIA. This is what the blogdome should be focusing on. THe Justice Department and FBI are on the case in terms of the leak. Now people should focus on the CIA.

Clear statement from the Prez:

 “Leaks of classified information are bad things. We’ve got too much leaking in Washington,“ Bush said during a stop in Chicago. "I want to know who the leakers are.” (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98673,00.html)

Hey, zionblogster, everything you just said is totally irrelevant. Absolutely 100% irrelevant. Even that bit about the rotten CIA is pointless right now. Someone screwed up and finding out who and why comes first. Fixing the CIA can come next.

Ed,

You asked what evidence I had that Plame's employment status was known prior to publication of Novak's July 14 column. I read it somewhere yesterday but couldn't find the source during lunch today after seeing your request. My recollection is that the source I saw yesterday put it at more than the standard "she worked in an embassy and everybody knows that is often a cover" allegation. You are right to question the reliability of this absent reference to the source, but May's NRO column yesterday is corrobatory evidence that, at the least, her employment wasn't a secret. I'll try again to find the source you requested later tonight when I'm home.

Keep in mind that almost all of this discussion is based on speculation. Consider patterns of career development and family life for government employees serving overseas. They keep marrying and raising families just like everyone else. Their employers have to accomodate them or lose them, and they often marry personnel in other agencies such that two different agencies have to accomodate the same pair of married staff. Worse, younger female employees in sensitive positions often have to change tracks in their agencies when they bear and raise young children.

I.e., that Plame's CIA career track following her marriage to Joe Wilson was analyst is not evidence that she was an analyst prior to marriage. She might been on a more sensitive, and covert, career track prior to marriage. We just don't know.

Claims that Plame's marriage precluded her from having been a covert employee subject to the non-disclosure statute are as much speculation as claims that her CIA employment automatically made disclosure of her employment a violation of that statute. I repeat that we just don't know. This is why people should not go off half-cocked, and Dan did.

Furthermore what really happened has disappeared under a mass of self-serving exaggerations and lies, not least from Joe Wilson. Add to that unintentionally inaccurate claims based on inaccurate stories which are then often intentionally altered, and repeated, for partisan or other self-serving reasons and we won't see the bottom of this until many news cycles after it has become yesterday's news.

We've seen that many times before and will in the future.

I had an open mind when Novak's story first appeared in July, though I doubted Wilson's claim about Rove as Rove is not that clumsy. Rove makes boneheaded decisions, such as spending million$ in California in the last month of the 2000 race instead of in more productive states like Florida, but he isn't clumsy.

Wilson's admission that he lied about Rove caused me to write the story off. It wouldn't be a story but for Wilson, and his credibility is gone. Sure it is possible that someone, perhaps more than one, in the Bush Administration, is dirty on this. But it's not worth my time to dig through all later uttered lies to find out what really happened when I know that the story started with a whopping lie by the complaining witness. Wilson's admitted lie makes it more likely than not that there really is nothing to the story, in addition to so increasing my marginal cost, in terms of personal time and effort, that it is just not worth it to me to find out if this most likely scenario is wrong.

I've since learned that Wilson is a loon as well as a liar - links to such evidence were posted above by others.

Those apologists on this comment board that don't think this warrants an investigation scare the shit out of me and sicken me to no end.

"Leaking public record information is neither a criminal or moral offense." Right, now go read what those bios say: the exact same thing that a Southern wedding announcement in a newspaper would say. Valerie Wilson is refered to as "the former Valerie Plame," not "the former Valerie Plame, a covert agent for the CIA."

Take your heads out of the sand and realize that this might go a little farther than your boy's chances next Novemeber. Try to remember that intelligence assets in the field could have been compromised DURING TIME OF WAR for petty political reasons.

Let the investigation work, stop trying to rewrite history, and quit taking your talking points from Bill O'Reilly, because they're just too damn easy to shoot down.

Ordi --

Some in the CIA know nothing of her some know everything about her service. So who are we listening to in the CIA? We don't even know that.

From the Times story:
It was the Central Intelligence Agency's general counsel who asked the Justice Department to open an inquiry into a July newspaper column, by the syndicated writer Robert Novak, that named an undercover C.I.A. agent.

That's just a formality, of course. If there is anything that is truly impossible anymore, it is that a formal CIA request to the Justice Department to investigate the White House goes out without the explicit approval of the Director, George Tenet. Who might be presumed to be able to find out whether Valerie Plame was covert or not, and who would also seem to have an interest in knowing.

I really don't see what "facts" you're asking me to wait for. Am I really supposed to hold open the hypothesis that VP is not undercover and that this CIA referral to DoJ is just based on a mistake about Plame's status?

Tom H. --

Wilson's admission that he lied about Rove caused me to write the story off. It wouldn't be a story but for Wilson, and his credibility is gone.

1. Wilson has not admitted any such thing. At most, what is being touted as his "retraction" was an admission that he didn't have direct knowledge that it was KR -- that it was an inference from what leakees had told him.

2. Wilson has nothing to do with whether this is a story or not, except in the sense that he and his wife probably wouldn't have gotten pissed on in the first place if he hadn't written his op-ed for the Times. It's a story because Novak named a CIA agent, sourcing two senior administration officials, the CIA demanded that DoJ investigate it and got impatient enough to make them stop stalling.

Jon H - Thanks for the info. Now take a deep breath. We don't know who outed who. Yet.

If you are interested in finding out the rest of the story, then let's find more pieces and lay them on the table. Don't be so quick to take the first tidbit and run with it. You might consider that is exactly what your opponents want you to do. Of course, if you are only interested in Bush bashing, then I guess the rest of this won't interest you.

It's established that Wilson did great work leading up to the first Gulf War. Then he became ambassador to Gabon and then Sao Tome, small African countries (I must confess to having to look them up on the map.). (Assigned by Bush I). This bio credits him with being one of the architects of President Clinton's Africa trip.

http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html

I don't know if this is the Saudi think tank that everyone is referring to.

After this, he was assigned as political advisor to the Commander-in-Chief, US Armed Forces in Europe.

Prior to Iraq, Wilson also spent time with other African nations, which no doubt prepared him for being the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.

No doubt the NSC deals with an intelligence matter or two.

Switching tracks, Chuck notes he was married in 1992, not in 1997, and, by inference, to Plame shortly thereafter.

What follows is pure speculation. If Wilson's first divorce was messy, could someone (foreign intel) have the goods (e.g. pictures with a mistress) on him in order to bring him on board. Hey, he earned quite a positive reputation during GW I. Wouldn't want that tarnished by some scandal. There should be some public records of the divorce. They may or may not shed some light.

Of course, I certainly hope not. And I don't mean to impugn Mr. Wilson's reputation. I'm just saying if there is substance to all of this then there is a likely a timeline that precedes July, 2003, when this all broke.

It also may be that Mr. Wilson has contacts throughout the Arab world that would like their side presented and Mr. Wilson is happy to oblige them as he has worked with them, is willing to help his friends and sincerely believes it. That's not a slam on him. I would much rather have the other side make their points through the press than with airliners into the sides of skyscrapers.

Also, as other blogs have noted, why assume that she uses Valerie Plame? The bio does say 'former' Valerie Plame. She could go by Valerie Wilson or Plame-Wilson. See http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002722.html, 18th(?) graf for one example. Google Valerie Wilson for others.

As a tidbit for Jon, where does the timing of Ari Fleischer's departure fit into all of this? *Speculation Alert* Maybe the guilty party has already been fired.

Brian

Of course, I certainly hope not. And I don't mean to impugn Mr. Wilson's reputation.

Why can I just not quite bring myself to believe you?

...there was other public record information identifying her by her maiden name as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Lies. Every time anyone sees Tom post, remind him that he makes shit up. Makes Shit Up.

If Ari was fired over it, why don't/didn't they tell us? If Ari was fired over it, who was the unfired co-conspirator? If Ari was fired over it, why did the Bush adminstration allow someone who had comitted a felony to evade the rule of law? If Ari was fired over it, isn't everyone who knew he was evading the rule of law guilty of a felony themselves? Troubling questions.

Squeaky,

From today's BOTW, an excerpt from Crossfire, which Novak hosts:

"When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis, who is--he is a former Clinton administration official. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004087

Perhaps the DOJ sat on it because they knew that it wasn't a story and they had more important things to do, like fight a war on the homefront. You know, fifth columns and other nasty business. But let the investigation go forward. Better to get it done now so the decks are cleared for Bush to stomp any Dem fool enough to take him on.

That's what Rove, uh, I mean, a senior White House official said in a strategy meeting yesterday.

Brian,

The NewsHour had a retired CIA agent on who trained with Valerie Plame. He said she had been undercover for three decades, that she was not an analyst, and that in any case some analysts are undercover. He was also one extremely pissed-off, registered, Bush-contributing Republican.

Somehow he impressed me more than Bob Novak's self-serving weasel words.

I have it all figured out.

It is a conspiracy against the Bush White House and this is how it happened.

There is no Plame that worked for CIA. In fact, she does not exist. Joseph Wilson is an alcoholic, liberal extremist that has delusions that he is married and has children.

So who, might you ask, is really behind this?

Well of course it is George Tenet, the master spy handler. He has been manipulating Wilson and the press. He did send Wilson to African in 2002 but Wilson just got drunk for awhile and came back. You note the denial in the tea drinking story.

Well he gets back and George tells him that he has heard through his extensive connections inside the Beltway that Cheney is not happy about the lack of yellowcake smoking guns and is going to “out” his wife. He convinces Wilson to get even by denouncing the yellowcake in the Times Op Ed piece.

So he has set his patsy in motion.

Fast forward to July or there abouts:

George Tenet calls Novak, pretends to be Novak’s source and lets it slip about Plame. (You know these CIA guys, they can change their voices to sound like anyone). He then has Novak’s “confirmation” call forwarded to the appropriate person and they verify that Plame is a CIA agent.

He also has his patsy out beating the bushs telling journalists that someone has outed his wife.

He has some interns make calls to journalists as “Training Exercises in Misinformation”.

So, Novak tells all in his July column. . . but darnit! Nothing happens.

So Tenet sends an unsigned letter to DOJ. Still, nothing happens!

So Tenet sends a formal request. Finally, the media get hold of it.

And so all the journalist are saying “Darn, We dropped the ball on this one”! How did we miss that?

“Wait a minute. . .”

Some of them remember that phone call they received about this Plame person, but they can not say anything cause it would violate their confidentiality.

So you see Plame does not exist. It is impossible that she is a CIA agent. The anonymous sources are all fakes. The stories are all lies.

No crime has taken place, but President Bush and Karl Rove are just taking the heat.

It is just unfair, I tell ya.

j Swift --

I read down pretty far thinking you were brian, man.

SqueakyRat,

Your post to Brian is useful. I mentioned that such might have been the case based on my knowledge of career tracks, but didn't have evidence one way or the other on Plame's background. You just provided evidence that she is covered by the non-disclosure statute.

Pejman Yousefzadeh posted the text of the statute (50 USC 421) involved here:
http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004461.html

and also check
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=421

My Legal Opinion: 50 USC 421 applies only to persons who had AUTHORIZED "access to classified information", which in law means federal employees, and authorized non-employee foreigners, who had such access it in the course of their official duties. Reporters, ordinary citizens, etc., aren't covered by the statute, NOR ARE federal employees (i.e., White House staffers) who lack security clearances.

It is typical "fed" behavior to threaten people with prosecution for offenses that don't pertain to them, so beware of exaggerated claims about criminal jurisdiction here. 50 USC 421 applies only to people who have authorized access to classified information.

In this case an all too possible scenario for a 50 USC 421 violation is that someone subject to the statute leaked Plame's status to Bush Administration political staff who aren't subject to 50 USC 421, and it was the latter who made it public. May's NRO column yesterday makes this the most likely scenario, not merely a possible one. There won't be any criminal prosecution if this is true.

And Plame's employment, from my recollection yesterday, was so widely known that it was written up somewhere public. I'll look that up again tonight (I'm on the West Coast) when I get home, and report here whether or not I find the source.

Hipocrite,

If I make stuff up, why did I admit that I could't find my source and worse, point out that Plame might be covered by the non-disclosure statute even though she is currently an analyst? SqueakyRat posted evidence on this _after_ I mentioned it.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and whack the speculation of both sides.

Will you apologize, or are you something normally found under bridges?

Aforementioned Cliff May piece

Blowjob v. condoning treason. How would you rather be remembered as a president?

Squeaky Rat:

What gave me away?

Squeaky,

The reference to the Crossfire piece is only one possible explanation for the reluctance of DOJ to investigate. Yes, it is entirely possible that they are stonewalling for political purposes too (like that never happened on Reno's watch.)

The transcript for the NewsHour show you mentioned is here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

The analyst's name is Larry Johnson, now CEO of Berg Associates. His bio is here:

http://www.berg-associates.com/larryc.htm

My reading of the transcript is Johnson is mad at Novak for printing the name.

I do agree with you that Novak is sounding pretty weaselish on this one. So he and Maureen Dowd can share a room at the Recovery Center for Political Reporters.

Tom, you're point on speculation is valid. The technical legalese, while somewhat interesting, is less important than the possible motives, which is what I am watching for. Based on the Adminstrations track record in the war effort, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt while this plays out. I look forward to your link to the public reference of Plame/Wilson's employment. And I think Hipocrite went back under the bridge with nechiaev.

Swiftie, you might want to take some lessons in satire from these guys: www.theonion.com. They're not the best, but it would be a step up. Oh, and take the lampshade off your head.

Brian,

Best I could do in fifteen minutes, dude.

I think the most interesting aspect about Valeria Wilson is that she appears to have been working under Non-Official Cover (NOC)--i.e., without diplomatic immunity
and subject to execution if caught by a hostile power.
(PS Note to the naive. Case Officers don't usually spy -- they direct and receive information from agents (usually foreigners, sometimes JC Wilson) who do the actual spying. Or Case Officers direct assassinations, sabotage, massive labor strikes, student protests, coups, political movements,etc. as direct action.

Someone noted that many Case officers use diplomatic cover and work at US embassies. Those guys, however, have diplomatic immunity but are usually under intense scrutiny by hostile services.

NOCs are special -- trading off safety for the sake of effectiveness. Since they lack immunity, their operations and security precautions must be elaborate. If someone blew a NOC officer's cover, that's a non-trivial matter.

Don, that'd be great but that is simply not the case man. What's up with folks not reading the news?

More Making Shit Up By Tom Holsinger. Last night has come and gone, and no word as to the source. New spin from MMSU? "Perhaps the senior white house staff didn't have a security clearance!"

A security clearance is required to gain access to various parts of the White House and to see certain documents. As you may know, Monica Lewinski had a security clearance, as did every other WH intern. And you are now doubting that Senior Adminstration Officials don't have security clearances? Are you kidding us all, are you just desperate for an exit strategy or are you a compulsive liar?

PS: That was me and if Tom's scenario is correct, Who Leaked It To the Non-Cleared White House Political Staff? (Which dosen't exist, but whatever)

Well, I finally got my answer, thanks to the Washington Post. From a story dated today, that Andrew Sullivan linked: "She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star."

Sounds like the makings of a new celebrity to me.

Well, I finally got my answer, thanks to the Washington Post. From a story dated today, that Andrew Sullivan linked: "She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star."

Sounds like the makings of a new celebrity to me.

Ed,

My router had a snit when I changed a network setting on the Windows XP computer on my home network, so my home DSL connection was off-line last night. It appears that XP computers do not get along with Linksys routers. I wouldn't try the widespread surfing necessary to find a link to my source about Plame's CIA connection being public record using my backup dial-up connection - life is too short.

Novak's column today makes it moot too. Next time I'll put up the links for stories I refer to, or not make the reference.

Ahh, yes - Tom found a story that the WHOLE WORLD IS LOOKING FOR (showing that everyone knew Plame was a covert CIA spy regardless of adminstration leaks) but apparently Novak's followup about how he MADE the phone call to the Whitehouse instead of being CALLED BY the Whitehouse makes that story irrelevent.

Why not just take your lumps? You just make shit up all the time, right? There's a reason why you'll have to put up links all the time now - because you have the credibility of a kid with their hand in the cookie jar.