home

Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa?

This Time Magazine article, not by Matthew Cooper, today says it was Valerie Plame Wilson's boss, the deputy chief of the CIA's counterproliferation division, not Valerie Plame who sent Wilson to Africa on the uranium mission:

What was the point of Rove or anyone else bringing up Plame in the first place? Was he saying Wilson was tainted by his close association with the CIA, whose analysts had generally been too skeptical of the Iraqi threat for the Administration's taste?

The tensions between the White House and the CIA had been rising steadily in the months before the Iraq invasion, as CIA analysts complained about evidence being distorted or ignored and the White House pushed back with complaints about the quality of the intel they were getting.

"I know the analyst who was subjected to withering questioning on the Iraq- al-Qaeda links by Libby with the Vice President sitting there," says a CIA analyst. "So I think there was an anger at the CIA for not getting it and not being on board. The political side of the Administration was pissed at the CIA. So I can see how they responded to that--and Wilson--by implying he couldn't be trusted because, 'well, just look where his wife works.'"

Or, more personally, was Rove suggesting that Wilson was chosen not for his expertise but because his wife was trying to help him stay in the game? Certainly Rove distorted her role when he claimed she had authorized the trip. "She was not in a position to send Joe Wilson anywhere except to bed without his supper," says Larry Johnson, a Plame classmate at the CIA who later worked on Central American issues for the agency and then moved to the State Department as a counterterrorism officer.

According to a declassified July 7, 2004, report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was Plame's boss, the deputy chief of the CIA's counterproliferation division, who authorized the trip. He did so after Plame "offered up" her husband's name for the Niger mission, according to the report. In a Feb. 12, 2002, memo to her boss, Plame wrote that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [Prime Minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Libby also testified three times to the grand jury and said he had obtained the information about Joseph Wilson's wife working for the CIA from a reporter. Here's the import of whether the White House officials were leakors or leakees, according to Time:

From legal and political angles, it looks better if Administration officials were leakees, not leakers. If the blame for blowing the cover of a CIA officer can be spread around, so much the better. And it suggests the challenge that Fitzgerald may face in building a case. It is one thing if Rove happened to hear from a reporter that Plame was a CIA officer, casually confirmed that he had already heard that to another reporter (Novak) and incidentally spread the word to a third (Cooper). It's perhaps something else if Administration officials made an effort to gather information on Wilson, discovered that his wife was a CIA officer and carried out a strategy to discredit Wilson that included outing his wife to a number of reporters. It is still another thing to do the second and pretend, under oath, that you had done the first.

On whether Plame was covert:

But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. "I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

The damage to the CIA by her outing:

Whatever the damage to Plame, there remains the cost paid by the CIA generally. In the wake of the disclosure, foreign intelligence services were known to have retraced her steps and contacts to discover more about how the CIA operates in their countries.

< 'Round the Bloggerhood | Cornyn for Supreme Court? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    Well. This article will get the right-wingers spinning like a top! I can hardly wait to hear their pathetic, weak excuses about how "this isn't true!", and "that isn't true!"

    Forget it! These people are dangerous, and should pay for every wrong thing they've ever done.

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    Gee, well I guess there goes the remaining rationale among wingnuts for why Plame deserved to lose her job. Maybe Rove was simply out of puppies to kick. Moral values, folks.

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    et al - From the post: My best guess is simple. When the admin asked for details, the request was discussed. Plame heard about it, and mentioned it to her husband, who “knew” that Saddam hadn’t purchased yellowcake, so he decided to go prove it. It is said that she recommended him. Why? Did he ask her to help? If not, why would the agency use someone who was not an agent? He was, at best, an amateur. Is that what they thought was professionalism? Wilson’s bias and position – pro Demo, anti-war – was well known. Doesn’t the use of him demonstrate a bias by the CIA? A political agenda by a faction within the agency. “I know the analyst who was subjected to withering questioning on the Iraq- al-Qaeda links by Libby with the Vice President sitting there," says a CIA analyst. "So I think there was an anger at the CIA for not getting it and not being on board. The political side of the Administration was pissed at the CIA. So I can see how they responded to that--and Wilson--by implying he couldn't be trusted because, 'well, just look where his wife works.' Bias within the agency? Why does this CIA employee think it is out of line for an analyst to be asked “withering” questions? It looks to me as if the CIA hasn’t been asked enough “withering” questions, such as, “Why was your intel so lousy on Iraq? Why didn’t you have better information on the 9/11 attacks?” I would grant the questions might be unfair, but life isn’t fair, and if a CIA analyst’s ego is so fragile that they are disturbed when asked “withering” questions I would say that person needs a new line of work. And doesn’t the phrase “for not getting it and not being on board,” clearly demonstrate the political bias of the analyst? Finally, why is this analyst even talking about this? The CIA is supposed to be an intelligence agency, and so hush-hush that even the mention of an-ex covert agent’s name, even after the agency wouldn’t tell Bob Novak to not use it, has caused a brouhaha of large proportions. I mean, if this information is so sensitive, isn’t the public comments by this employee completely out of line? And why is this analyst a "good" source and Rove/Novak a "bad" sorce? And why would a CIA employee bring this up, and a reporter report it, if not to attack the administration? Pot meet kettle.

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    PPJ,
    My best guess is simple.
    No more simple than any of your guesses in the past, so why should we expect any better today?

    Here's a better guess. Some who work in the intelligence community actually take pride in their jobs, and feel that since they're the ones gathering and evaluating the information, many of them for many years, they know better than a bunch of career politicians what the intel means.

    The VP and his little helpers need to remain in the undisclosed location, and leave people alone, so they can do their jobs.

    Bias? There's bias everywhere. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and you'll never get away from that. The trick is to not let your bias allow you to fall for policies based on lies and manipulation. Fixes, in other words.

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#5)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    cheetah writes:
    they know better than a bunch of career politicians what the intel means.
    I must have struck a nerve. I'm not sure what they know. They certainly screwed the pooch on 9/11, and Iraq, and when questioned "witheringly," they apparently throw hissy fits and tell stories out of school. Whether the story is true or not this "analyst," if indeed the "analyst" actually exists since we have no way of knowing beyond the reporter's word, should be fired. I say again. Why is this a "good source?" Is it because it is telling "bad" things about the administration? cheetah, you can't have it both ways. Unidentified sources are either good or bad. You pick'em. BTW – Are you actually proposing that the “politicians” turn over the running of the government to career bureaucrats? I mean, have you heard of “elections?”

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    My best guess is simple
    Do you ever read a damn newspaper?

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    They certainly screwed the pooch on 9/11, and Iraq
    Uhhh, an emphatic NO! When the NSC head and prez ignore 'OBL Determined to Attack in the US' and demote people like R Clarke who were right in previous cases and were right in this case, it isn't the intel gathering that was at fault. When your intelligence is 'feith' based, when pols cherry pick ONLY the info that supports their twisted world view, when anyone who disagrees is demoted, ridiculed or ignored, screwups like 9/11 and iraq are assured. Who really sent Wison to iraq? It was the cia ops office at the request of the vp office.

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    Jim - Joe Wilson is not an amateur. He's a career diplomat. He has had an ambassadorship in one African nation and has served as a diplomatic officer in another capacity in three African countries, one of them being Niger. He was the 'acting' ambassador (Iraq) during Desert Shield, and as someone (Chris/Jeralyn) pointed out - charge d'affairs @ the U.S.Embassy in Baghdad. "Plame heard about it, and mentioned it to her husband, who “knew” that Saddam hadn’t purchased yellowcake, so he decided to go prove it". You really are just a whirlwind of disinformation. Wilson has repeatedly said how he was referred to the CIA for this "job." It is not as you state here.

    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    There's this, Jim. First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."
    "That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife, sent to her superiors that says, "My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."


    Re: Who Really Sent Wilson to Africa? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    PPJ,
    Unidentified sources are either good or bad.
    What could be more ridiculous than that statement? If, in the course of becoming an "unidentified source", a person commits a crime, they shift (or should) from being a source to being a criminal. No one in this country should be allowed to live above the law. Simple enough for you, or should I have typed s-l-o-w-e-r?

    Your "BTW" is a ridiculous reading of my statement, and not worth further discussion.