Prince Charles is about to be investigated about the death of Diana. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that this is a waste of time. Yet, this silliness continues unabated. The same holds true for the Valerie Plame “scandal.” Let’s get something straight right here and now: the relevant statutes specifically target only the Phillip Agees. In other words, a prosecutor must prove that the accused deliberately desired to out a CIA foreign agent. Nothing less will do. However, the only witness, Robert Novak, insists that this was not the case! The White House operative apparently merely blurted out Mrs. Wilson’s connection to the CIA. Furthermore, less lenient prosecutorial guidelines would justify thousands (yes, thousands!) of arrests alone in the Washington, DC, area. Those residing within the beltway constantly joke about those who “secretly” work for the CIA.

Why? What does the WH have to be worried about?

They stonewalled the secret energy policy investigation and the 9/11 Commission. No consequences.

WMD = Wishful thinking about WMD (aka "What's the difference [between wanting and having]?" No consequences.

Iraq = 9/11; Saddam = OBL. No consequences.

500 Americans dead; no one knows how many wounded; no one knows or cares how many Iraqis killed and wounded; no one knows how much longer we'll be over there. No consequences.

Cancelled a $1 billion settlement that should have gone to American soldiers who were captured and torturned by Iraq during 1st Gulf War. Money goes to Halliburton instead. No consequences.

Cuts and/or cancels veterans' benefit programs even as he extols soldiers' bravery and sacrifices. No consequences.

Sweetheart deals with Halliburton, which Cheney still gets money from, which has gouged the American taxpayer, and now we find out there are kickbacks, too. No consequences.

Talks about moon and Mars missions just long enough to justify ending the shuttle, International Space Station, and Hubble Telescope programs. Net result: no space program at all. No consequences.

Running up a deficit so bad even The Economist is aghast. No consequences.

Has never told the truth a single time he's opened his mouth about anything. No consequences.

Honestly, what can there possibly be to worry about in the Plame Investigation?

People are perfectly well aware Plame was outed by Senior Admin Officials in petty revenge against her husband for (correctly) pointing out Le Dauphin lied about yellowcake.

No one give a damn. Bush has nothing to fear.

A legalistic defense is already in play. "Met her as an analyst, did not know the covert stuff, prove I did." This might be enough to prevent indictments.

The legalistic defense won't help the image of Karl Rove or Libby at a defense table.

I will believe it when I see it.

The usual liberal bleats about this stuff not withstanding, let's look at the reality.

When a crime is committed, and is being investigated. One of the key factors, generally speaking, is who would be motivated by some kind of gain to do the crime; either financial, status or both. Thusfar, investigators have been considering that ether as only one group of people that stood to gain anything by leaking the info about Wilson's wife. Thing is, the administration's gains are at best questionable, and in truth, imperceptible.

There are, however, a couple people who stood to gain quite a bit from such a leak; Joe Wilson and his wife, Valarie Plame. It shouldn't shock you that the press hasn't thought of this one, given their own leanings.

Let's consider this from their perspective for a moment, though, and you'll see what I mean.

Wilson's wife, by all accounts has been in the field as an agent for 20 years or so. After so long in any business, particularly a higher pressure one as being a operative must be, one starts thinking about retirement. Wilson himself hasn't had a job in years, and money's likely getting tighter than they'd like.

Then too, Wilson and his wife are both tight with the Democrat party's inner circle. They are disturbed by the loss of the White House, and the Iraq war, both of which apparently, they'd both been rather outspoken about. All this is well known fact.

Being assigned to the mission in Niger must have seemed an open invitation to Wilson and his wife.

Leak info to the press that Plame is a CIA operative, and then blame the White house.

What will that get? Several things;

1: It attempts to discredit Mr Bush and his administration both on the Iraq War and on its honesty, thus advancing the agenda of their fellow liberal Democrats.

2: It gets Wilson lots of money from doing TV stand-ups from the news agencies for the next several months, which both makes Wilson lots of money, but also gives him a bully pulpit to further pursue point number 1. (Is there any TV outlet that didn't have the publicity hound Wilson on as a "guest"?)

3: Plame claims she can no longer work. So, she gets retired early, and will undoubtedly pick up a large sum of cash for unspecified damages in civil suits against the administration she claims leaked her identity.... thus 'endangering' her.

The two of them go off and live out their remaining days in government provided leisure in the south of France somewhere, with the world-wide left thinking them heroes. Except of course when the DNC needs to trot them out as martyrs to the revolution at or near election time. On these points alone this is a win/win situation for Wilson his wife and the Democrats.

With all the underhanded dealing by the Democrats of late, doing everything they can to muddy the water, this would be just one more such 'operation'.

Add all these factors up, and the moral assurity with which the Democrats have been making their case in this matter, becomes a rather large question mark.

Granted that this is speculation, but that's what investigators do. And the only speculation I've seen so far involves some White House source or another. Given the above does it really make sense for the press to exclude Wilson and Plame for the list of culprits?

Only if they're trying to use this as a club to beat up the White House with....

And let's look at one more point that once mentioned about two weeks after the initial Novak peice, never saw light of day again: the NYT reported that Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA agent at least nine years Novak supposedly blew her cover. The story at the time ran:

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994," revealed the New York Times on Saturday. "

The column, written by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof explained that the Ames tip compromised Valerie Plame's undercover secrecy so thoroughly that "she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Add it all up; the likelyhood is that this is a DNC operation.

Which rather explains why the leftists are all over this one, doesn't it?

What?! And they say the left is full of conspiracy theorist wackos.

Nobody cares.

Wow...Bithead you are really sharp to pick up on this one.

I just have a question. How do you explain the fact that Novak himself said it was a senior administration official? Is he in on this as a covert Democratic operative?

Oh yeah...one more thing...if the Dems are so smart to be able put this entire plan together without raising an ounce of suspicion why the heck aren't they in charge? It seems that winning an election would be easy compared to this scheme.

When you get done playing with the label gun, you MAY want to make suggestions as to what disproves the ideas I've posted... You see, simply sticking a "conspiracy theorist " label on the idea doesn't do prove much beyond your ability to type combined with your inability to argue your position with any backing.

It is interesting that you find the administration’s motives (or “gains” as you put it) for “outing” Mrs. Wilson imperceptible. They may, in fact, be very questionable, but perceiving what they are is quite simple. They are (in some order of priority):

Revenge – against Wilson for shooting holes in the administration line regarding WMDs (or, more currently, WMD related program activities);
Example/Intimidation – for anyone else who might dare to cross the administration in the press;
Ad homonym attack – raise questions about Wilson’s motives and expertise as his wife got him the job (i.e., he got the job purely through nepotism and not because of any expertise or experience he may have).

Yet, you find no problem in assigning Mrs. Wilson a motive for outing herself ?!? Do you really think she would expose herself so that Ambassador Wilson could go on TV and she could file lawsuits? Doesn’t it seem a lot more plausible that “senior administration officials” made a few phone calls in an ill considered reaction to Wilson’s piece in the New York Times?

Whadda ya know... more reasoned responses.

TT: revenge certainly is posible, but not likely given the probability of such information getting out to a press hungry for something/anything to hang on Mr. Bush. Your other two points I would question by the same token. Too easy to out that info.

And yes, I do think she would out herself. Think; She's been at it for 20 years and would in hat event be ready to retire, anyway. Further, as I suggested, she'd already been outted back in 1994 duing the Ames problems, and wouldn't be used in any further field work anyway.

Look, let's be honest enough to say hat anyone concerned about hteir ID being leaked doesn't allow their photos to be placed in VANTITY FAIR.

Rich;

Also a reasonable question. I'm by no means suggesting Novak is telling the full truth here, either. Consider; the left has often enough charged him over the years with lying to make a political case; does it make sense they'd now take his word as gospel? I suspect thet Novak used the stock cover phrase " A high white house official" as a cover for his true source... for motivations of his own.

As to your other good point, about smarts, well that works both ways.

If the Bush administration is smart enough to suppsoedly steal an election, why would they ahve such a problem covering up it's own revenge moves?

Reagrds
/Bit

This is much ado about nothing. The left and the press do not really care about the leak. They only care about the remote possibility of snagging Bush with a scandal. Everybody wants to get the glory for exposing another Watergate. But at most, this was somebody's mistake, not some conspiracy. Sheesh. Grow up people.

If Justice is confident enough to use a grand jury, they have a pretty good idea of the outcome. Which might be indictments of people outside the Adminstration. And that the Bush Administration would rather have done by a grand jury.

Bit-
Hmm. Could it be that V. Plame has lived a life that you could only dream about? A REAL undercover operative, dealing with REAL conspiracies, REALLY helping to protect America from WMDs? Must have been tough to see that elegant picture in Vanity Fair when all you can do is weave mean-spirited fantasy conspiracies on your computer.

MC:
Not since 94, she hasn't.

If she's getting her pics posted in a national mag, the last thing she's worried about is her own security... sorry. Doesn't work that way.

Bithead---

have you seen the vanity fair photosgraph of Plame? She's wearing a scarf over her haid and dark glasses. All you can tell is that she is a white female over 30 and under 60.

For Pete's sakes, look at your own sources...

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000487.html

Cripes, what is the quality of Internet argument coming to these days?

This whole thing with Ms. Plame is bullshit. I believe that I would be able to recognize her if she was walking down Pennsylvania Ave. in D.C. The conversation would go something like this:

Fraydog: Hey, Valerie Plame.
Valerie Plame: Hey. Wait a minute, how in the hell do YOU know who I am? Do you work for the CIA, you look awful young to do that.
Fraydog: Uh, Valerie, your picture was in Vanity Fair. Seeking the spotlight, aren't you?

I don't see what the White House has to worry about here. Her name has been out there much longer than she puts on, long before Novak said a word about it.

A grand jury is the most powerful investigative tool in the American legal system, and the convening of one should scare any administration (Weber's dirty hands and all, you understand). People are always terrified of the unknown, and the good Mr. Starr demonstrated, if nothing else, that a grand jury could be kept in business on a vast range of more or less unrelated charges until something finally stuck, if that is what the prosecutor wants. So the fear is understandable, but may not actually have a basis in fact.

As for the discussion about Valerie Plame, the only thing I can say is: I don't care. She had her picture taken in Vanity Fair? I don't care. White House flack didn't know she was NOC? I don't care. Joe Wilson is on some kind of political jihad against the Bush administration? I don't care.

Put them all in jail. Enforcing the principle that people who put their lives at risk for this country should not be betrayed -- not by self-regarding politicians, not by journos, not even by themselves -- is worth all their heads, as far as I'm concerned.

Scott Harris writes: "This is much ado about nothing. The left and the press do not really care about the leak. "

The only person who matters is Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. Who apparently is going after it with his usual determination, like a rottweiler digging into a side of beef.

Bit writes: "Not since 94, she hasn't."

Yeah, I'm sure Fitzgerald is convening a grand jury to investigate the White House, even though a simple examination of Plame's travel records five months ago would have revealed that the law didn't apply.

I don't think so. Ashcroft's head would roll if they screwed up so badly. Literally.

The fact that it's gotten this far strongly suggests that Plame spent some time, out of the country, undercover, within 5 years of the outing.

“The fact that it's gotten this far strongly suggests that Plame spent some time, out of the country, undercover, within 5 years of the outing.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Investigations that are underpinned by a Catch 22 mentality have a life of their own. The logic may leave much to be desired, but it still doesn’t matter. Democrats are hoping to find some dirt on the Bush administration, and the Republicans don’t dare to put a stop to this nonsense. Ultimately, someone in the white House may be forced to resign out of embarrassment---and the officials in charge will declare that no laws were broken.

"White House flack didn't know she was NOC? I don't care."

You may not care---but the law does! The relevant statute is specifically written to deal only with the Phillip Agees. The standard is very high, and that’s why nobody will likely ever be prosecuted. It must be proven in a court of law that the accused deliberately wished to out a CIA secret agent. The previously mentioned Phillip Agee easily passed this test. Robert Novak insists that this wasn’t the case with the White House official.

And yet an examination of his word choice (cf. operative vs. analyst) would seem to indicate otherwise...

Oh, and David? Are you saying that if it wasn't illegal by the letter of the law, it didn't really matter? Excuse me?

To me this is like a murder mystery. You have to consider all the possible murderers (aka possible leakers). It is possible that the SR Admin offical was a career employee (of the Democratic kind or someone with a grudge)from the State or the Pentagon or any other agency. Novak said it was not a SR WH offical.

I am NOT saying it is but it is possible. As someone above said, these things take on a life of their own. Time will tell.

Bit writes: "Not since 94, she hasn't."

Yeah, I'm sure Fitzgerald is convening a grand jury to investigate the White House, even though a simple examination of Plame's travel records five months ago would have revealed that the law didn't apply.

I don't think so. Ashcroft's head would roll if they screwed up so badly. Literally.

Valid points, but your conclusion isn't. See, there's two things you're not considering. If, as I've suggested, they're simply looking for something to hang on Bush;

1:THe investigation doesn't NEED to turn up anything, it simply needs to exist at least until November.

2: Let's say they did as you suggest; look at her travel records, and the law doesn't apply. Can you imagine the reaction of the left when Ashcroft makes that announcement? Wouldn't they claim cover-up?

David Thomson writes: "Nothing could be further from the truth. Investigations that are underpinned by a Catch 22 mentality have a life of their own. The logic may leave much to be desired, but it still doesn’t matter. Democrats are hoping to find some dirt on the Bush administration, and the Republicans don’t dare to put a stop to this nonsense. "

But that's where you're wrong.

If Plame hadn't been out of the country for so long she weren't covered by the agent-outing law, that would be an easy to prove, objective means to end the investigation.

If she hasn't been out of the country since 1994, then chances are no law was broken, and it decreases the likelihood that any damage was done to foreign sources.

If the investigation came out with this result, it would be trivially easy for Plame and the CIA to refute, if the investigation's report were not true. So if they don't refute it, the investigation's report would be valid, and not a cover up. Likewise, if the CIA and/or Plame contest such a result, they would be required to show evidence that Plame did travel overseas since mid-98, which shouldn't be too difficult.

It's a simple objective question of evidence, which would be much harder to use for accusations of coverup or shoddy investigation or lame excuses.

Such a result would be vastly preferable to taking a defensive approach and having to justify outing a CIA agent, or trying to claim you didn't know she was covert.

Bit: "Can you imagine the reaction of the left when Ashcroft makes that announcement? Wouldn't they claim cover-up?"

It wouldn't hold water if, objectively, no crime were committed. If her trips don't fit, you must acquit, as
someone might say.

Also, if the DOJ could quickly turn up evidence that Plame weren't covered by the law, and hadn't been covert for a decade, that would seriously dispell Wilson's credibility on the charge, and they (Wilson & wife) would come out looking bad. The White House would look like the victim of a smear job, and the press would soon lose interest, because their sympathetic victim would turn out to not have been a victim at all.

Really, if the charge could be dismissed due to the objective facts of Plame's service record, that would be a really good outcome for the White House.

If no crime was committed, then the case becomes just another legal leak of classified information, and the press and public would lose interest, and calls for investigation would ring hollow.

ordi writes: " Novak said it was not a SR WH offical."

If Novak was being pedantic, the VP's office is not in the White House. It's in the Executive Office Building.

Bits -

The hostility to your assertion, as is usual in all cases, speaks volumes of the posters.

Apparently we're to believe that no government employee would ever stoop to such degree - this from the same people who constantly hold current the highest government employee in such slight regard.

One is reminded of the Ambassador's retort to Premier Kissov in Kubrick's DSoHILTSW<B;

Oh? Only Commie Stooges, eh?"

Bithead ... if you're not smart enough to let people see your own site in full HTML glory, then you're not smart enough to comment on this site.

Enough said. Take your conservative ass back to Rochester.

“If Plame hadn't been out of the country for so long she weren't covered by the agent-outing law, that would be an easy to prove, objective means to end the investigation.”

Sadly, common sense does not always dictate the actions of an on going investigation. This is especially true when it is politically motivated. The question whether any laws were actually broken will not be officially determined until the very end. In the meantime, the investigators may strongly suspect that no laws were broken---but it is their duty to simply follow orders. Somebody obviously has never read Joseph Heller’s “Catch 22.”

The law in question is very narrowly written to punish those (Agee) who intentionally disclose identities of covert operatives. Required elements include knowing the agent is covert, and having acquired that knowledge through authorized access. ISTM that's unlikely to apply to anyone other than a current or former CIA employee, and even if it were true, likely to be unprovable. (A plausible "I didn't know," or "I heard it through the grapevine" are both sufficient defenses.)

The grand jury could be a response to a smoking gun, but I'm not sure what that'd look like. The criminal exposure on this seems minimal. The political fallout is more difficult to quantify, but history suggests it's the coverup that kills. Avoidance of that perception might explain Ashcroft's recusal and scrupulous investigation even if it's obviously not heading to an indictment.

For political reasons, a grand jury had to be convened - otherwise, the press and the opposition would be all "its a coverup, its a coverup!" I predict the outcome will be no indictments, simply because the legal requirements (either the intent requirement or the requirement that the outed operative have been overseas) can't be met.

Its possible that the leaker will be identified, but it so the consequences will be personal and professional humiliation, not a criminal conviction.

The seriousness with which the truth is being pursued in this case can be determined by looking at one fact - has Novak been subpoenaed? If he hasn't, then this isn't a serious investigation. Everyone knows that he knows exactly who the leaker is, after all. If this leak really put "Vanity Fair" Plame's life in danger, then there should be no hesitation whatsoever about putting Novak on the stand.

Bithead ... if you're not smart enough to let people see your own site in full HTML glory, then you're not smart enough to comment on this site.

Enough said. Take your conservative ass back to Rochester.

If I thought you had any idea what you were talking about.....

Bithead ... if you're not smart enough to let people see your own site in full HTML glory, then you're not smart enough to comment on this site.

Enough said. Take your conservative ass back to Rochester.

Hmmm. Odd....According to my tracker software, you saw it just fine.

Way to go, Bithead!
One theory only and you're sticking to it!

Hell, if you were in the White House we'd already be in Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction.

No.
By now, we'd be in Syria.

This whole affair is such a waste of time and resources, but necessary to complete for political reasons on both sides.

My personal take is that the naming of Wilson's wife as a CIA agent was more of an 'Ooops' during an attempt to discredit Wilson. It may have been Beltway common knowledge that Plame worked for the CIA. And, IMHO, the descredit attempt was justified.

Wilson only discovered that no sale of yellowcake was made to Saddam from Niger. And such a big deal he made of that. He himself, when asked, said he didn't investigate whether there was an attempt by Saddam to purchase, only that no sale ever happened.

And the words in the SOTU did not mention Niger, but Africa. Unfortunately the public seems to assume there is *only* one country in Africa.

Besides, by recusing himself it seems to me that Ashcroft discovered there was really nothing much to the whole affair but that the public wouldn't buy that if it came from him.

Stl;

Your points are well taken, particularly as regards Niger vs the remainder of Africa.

I find the tussle over this, a faintly amusing bit of misdirection on the part of some, given the story out of the Netherlands:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108654,00.html

"AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — The U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed Friday that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as yellowcake (search) that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor."

Clearly, they got it from SOMEWHERE....

Bithead writes: ""AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — The U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed Friday that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as yellowcake (search) that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor."

Clearly, they got it from SOMEWHERE...."

Iraq already *had* loads of yellowcake, acquired long ago, probably during the 80s. They didn't need new yellowcake from Niger, or anywhere else, because they still had plenty on hand.

Hi, Jon;

Well, that seems part of the issue, doesn't it? After all, even the linked story suggests that there was not enough found in that scrap yard to make a bomb.

It seems rather clear to me, though regardless that someone felt the need to hide the material. Which since there wasn't enough to worry about in the one small find, suggests that there was more out there to hide. It also follows that this method had been used in more than just this one small shipment.

I am not suggesting this of itself constitutes proof of a large weapons program. That would be unreasonable.(Though it does suggest at least a small amount of UN banned activity.)

What I am suggesting, however, is that all this casts serious question on the blanket statements being offered by the left as regards the state of the Iraqi weapons program.... and instead of approaching it with the closed 'there's nothing there" mind, we need to investigate this further.

This is particularly true in light of the reports of weapons and weapons program items being moved to Syria in the weeks prior to the war.

Bithead? More like Bitbrain. Why are you wasting our time with this fantasy? I hope your kidding, if not, you are a complete moron. Well maybe not a complete moron, if you want to see a complete moron, you have to go to the White House.