
(Photo credit Pachacutec)
Two quick impresions: When Valerie Wilson came into the hearing room, there were so many camera shutters going off, it sounded like the wings of a butterfly. It kind of enhanced her ethereal presence. But then when Elijah Cummings asked Valerie about Victoria Toensing, I imagine we saw the side of Valerie that–as Jim Marcinkowski once reported–made her the best person at handling an AK-47 in her CIA class. Man, I wish I had an AK-47 face like that!
Jane and Christy and Pach said so much Friday about individual aspects of the Waxman hearing, I thought I’d focus my recap on the way the hearing came off as a totality. Waxman structured the hearing very effectively so that it accomplished several goals. Effectively, the hearing laid out the problem—Valerie Wilson, whose career was ruined out of vindictive spite. It laid out the legally required solution–an Administrative investigation, even while establishing that solution had not been accomplished. And then it explored the legal realities surrounding leaked classified information (which is a polite way of saying it exposed Victoria Toensing for what she is). I’m going to look at each panel, but first let me say a word about the timing.
The Timing
I was skeptical, at first, about a Friday hearing. Democrats have ended the Republican practice of 2.5 day work weeks. But Congressmen do need to be home in their districts on weekends for constituent services. Which means if you’re going to hold a 4 hour hearing on a Friday, you’re really asking your members to jump through hoops to attend the meeting. And Waxman got that commitment from enough of his members to make it an effective hearing. Whereas Davis couldn’t persuade enough Republicans to attend even to give him a chance to launch his bid at closing the hearing.
The result reminded me of the rump hearing the Democrats had on the intelligence leading to the Iraq War—for most of the hearing, Tom Davis was the only Republican present. With cameos, of course, from Congressman Westmoreland so he could leer at Valerie. In truth, the Republicans were most consistently represented by a never-named attorney, a tall guy who sat right next to Davis in Congressman Dan Burton's seat. The lawyer had a look of “oh shit” on his face for the better part of the hearing and he kept swallowing his lips when he thought. For much of the hearing, Davis and GOP Counsel were sitting there, huddled with two aides, which really added to the look of desperation. And by the end, for most of Victoria Toensing’s appearance, the only one (aside from a few aides) sitting on the Republican side was GOP Counsel. That’s what they’ve come to—sending their lawyer in their stead, to protect them from the oversight they’re supposed to be exercising.
Valerie
In many ways, Valerie was the simplest part of this Hearing. While Davis and the Leering Westmoreland tried to take their potshots at Valerie, every attempt just made the Republicans look worse. “Don’t you understand, Leering Westmoreland, my cover was blown several months before Vanity Fair took my picture!?” After which GOP Counsel and Davis would huddle and try to think of some other clever comeback that Valerie could swat down.
Otherwise, though, the message was simple, stated once by Waxman and repeated, over and over, by Valerie. Valerie Wilson was covert. And those who outed her are—in the words of Poppy Bush—the most insidious of traitors.
Don’t get me wrong. Valerie was brilliant. Maybe that’s not even the word. She had the calm of someone who can finally speak the truth. Powerful.
Leonard and Knodell
The truly great part of the hearing was the pairing of Bill Leonard and James Knodell. Because Waxman and Hodes and the rest of the committee grilled Knodell, but they did so using the standards Leonard established. Leonard's one of those stiff law and order types, so it framed Knodell as breaking Leonard's laws, not Knodell's. It was like a game of tennis which the Administration lost, badly. Mr. Leonard, what should happen when there is an unauthorized leak of classified information? Mr. Knodell, did that happen? Mr. Leonard? Mr. Knodell?
And, as we now know, between July 24, when the CIA first voices its concerns about the leak, and September 16, when DOJ finally decided to launch a criminal investigation, the White House did not conduct the Administrative investigation that is required by law in cases of unauthorized leaks of classified information.
WAXMAN: Will the gentleman yield to me…
CUMMINGS: Of course.
WAXMAN: … because I just want to pin this point down? Do you know whether there was an investigation at the White House after the leaks came out?
KNODELL: I don’t have any knowledge of an investigation within my office.
WAXMAN: Ever?
KNODELL: I do not.
WAXMAN: Because the president said he was investigating this matter and was going to get the bottom of it. You’re not aware that any investigation took place?
KNODELL: Not within my office, sir.
Now, let me explain, for those who have been confused by Toensing's perma-headfake. This hearing was not about the IIPA statute. This hearing was about the illegal leaking of classified information. No matter how you parse words about Valerie's travels overseas, the White House was still obliged to launch an Administrative investigation when it learned of the leak–in July 2003, two months before the start of the criminal investigation. It did not do so. Period.
Toensing and Zaid
Once again, this was supposed to be a tennis match: Mr. Zaid, what has happened to your clients who have leaked classified information. Ms. Toensing, now do you see why people in the Administration who leaked classified information should have lost their security clearance? Only Toensing forgot anyone was sitting next to her, and answered almost every question asked, whether directed to her or not.
But apparently Toensing didn't read the memo. No, seriously, she didn't. She had to be reminded that her invite letter specified that the hearing was about the unauthorized leak of classified information, not about the IIPA. But on and on she'd go, babbling about the IIPA–and do you want to hear her stories about Goldwater? By the end, Elijah Cummings made a very heartfelt comment–on the importance of remembering the issues, that a CIA officer protecting us from WMD had been outed. Toensing didn't really have a response to that. Which was, IMO, the most effective moment in Toensing's testimony. Because really, even she doesn't have a good response to the deliberate outing of a CIA officer.
Anyway, as I said, none of the Republicans thought Toensing's testimony sufficiently important to sit through all of it–and remember, she was their gal. Apparently, only GOP Counsel felt it worthwhile (or perhaps was required) to sit through her blathering.
The most striking part of her testimony, though, was the laughter. Not only me, though I was laughing. at times. But some of the good objective journalists sitting around me. And–honest to betsy–there were two Republican aides who were openly laughing at her. I guess they figured that–since the members had already left–they were free to express their real opinion of Toensing.
Finally, I know Jane promised a smackdown and summary of the inaccuracies Toensing used in her testimony. I think when Waxman referred to these he meant they were inaccuracies rather than full-blown perjury (though, just to be sure, Toensing might want to issue a retraction of some of them). I think, quite honestly, Toensing just forgot that she often, um, exaggerates when she's on TV, and that as a result, some of the stuff that falls out of her mouth like blobs of chewing gum actually isn't true. I'm going to wait until I get the (still-open) Congressional Record to do the smackdown, so I'm working with exactly what she said. But there were three, in particular, that stick out in my mind: the claim the INR memo "proved" Valerie sent or suggested Joe, the claim that Grenier told Libby about "Valerie Plame," and the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger. The public record doesn't support any of those assertions–yet Toensing offered those as "facts" "she knew." It doesn't reflect well, on Toensing, that in the same appearance where she spouted a number of "facts" "she knew" about the IIPA, she also contradicted the public record on a number of issues she claims "to know." But I guess none of us should be surprised.
The Totality
Which leaves us, two days later, to reflect on what the Hearing accomplished. Importantly, Waxman gave Valerie Wilson an opportunity to correct, under oath, many of the fictions the right has propagated about her in the last four years. Just as importantly, the Hearing served to remind us (as Patrick Fitzgerald did in his closing statements) that Valerie Wilson is a person, not an argument. Not only does she have kids and a husband. But she used to have an important role in protecting our country from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. She served our country, and the gratitude our country showed her was to expose her, her family, her colleagues, and the assets she recruited to a great deal of danger.
But the hearing also did one more thing. It established uncontrovertibly that the White House did not follow statutes governing the unauthorized release of classified information. Regardless of what happens with the other materials Fitzgerald collected during his investigation, establishing that fact gives Waxman the ability to pursue more information. It took a matter of hours for Waxman to take the next step–asking Josh Bolten for a full accounting.
To assist the Committee in its investigation into these issues, I request that you provide the Committee with a complete account of the steps that the White House took following the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity (1) to investigate how the leak occurred; (2) to review the security clearances of the White House officials implicated in the leak; (3) to impose administrative or disciplinary sanctions on the officials involved in the leak; and (4) to review and revise existing White House security procedures to prevent future breaches of national security.
Waxman established the groundwork for further investigation. Given his tenaciousness, given the fact that Waxman already used the threat of a subpoena to "encourage" Knodell to appear, I fully expect this investigation will continue. That's what the Hearing established–the basis for further investigation.
Related posts:
- HJC Schedules “Get Democrats to Cave on PATRIOT” Hearing
- Waxman: Blue Dogs Trying to “Eviscerate” Health Care
- PATRIOT Renewal Hearing, Day One Wrap Up: Who Protects Us from the Protectors?
- Blue Dog Letter to Waxman Wants PhRMA Deal to Replace Chairman’s Language in Health Bill
- Chairman Waxman Strengthens Health Bill Cost-Efficiency Sections





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Needle!
Thanks for being there, Marcy. Greatly appreciate you and Pach catching the hearing live.
But that’s not what Brit Hume said:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..lame-oath/
*wink
Great summary, EW.
Nancy Pelosi may have said that impeachment is off the table. But some of her colleagues are slowly, patiently, and correctly building the case for it.
Bless you, Marcy!
ESTEN!
Before I get EPU’d in the last thread, I thought I’d post this here. It’s my letter in response to Broder’s inane article in today’s ComPost.
Dear Mr. Broder,
I read your column from March 18 with much interest. I have several questions about the conclusions you drew:
First, can you point out where prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concluded that there was no crime? I thought that, in fact, he just convicted the vice president’s senior aide of perjury and obstruction of justice! Those are serious crimes that many Republicans thought justified the impeachment of a United States President a few years back. Additionally, obstruction of justice means just what it says: Scooter Libby obstructed Fitzgerald’s investigation, preventing anyone from being prosecuted for a violation of the IIPA law.
You state that “no one behaved well in the whole mess.” I would appreciate you pointing me to an instance in which Joe Wilson did not behave well. To me, it appears that he saw an administration twisting intelligence so that it could lead the country into a war. He first attempted to bring this to light anonomously, and only when that failed did he sign his name to the accusation. And if Rove behaved badly (it is now part of the public record that he did, indeed, reveal the name of a covert officer to at least two people who had no right to know), why does anyone owe him an apology?
The original leak was not the leak to Robert Novak. It is also now part of the public record that Scooter Libby leaked Plame’s name to Judith Miller BEFORE Armitage leaked her name to Novak. You state that there is a conspiracy theory, but all I see is an actual conspiracy–one to leak the name of a covert agent as a warning about the lengths that this administration would go to to destroy anyone who would criticize it.
So, one of us is quite wrong about what happened with this entire fiasco. I would appreciate if you would take the time to point out where I’m incorrect. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Mike Novak (no relation to Bob or Viveca)
There was something extraordinary about hearing several congresspeople tell Toensing “I’m reclaiming my time” as she gibbered away. (Honestly, was she coked up or something?)
“I’m reclaiming my time.” Yeah, it kind of felt that way. What a civilized, assertive way of telling someone to shut the fuck up.
Wow, emptywheel, thanks!
Henry Waxman is a beautiful man.
emptywheel. great post. check this out when you get a minute.
I will add my thanks to those above. My copy of your book finally arrived here in Greece, and I am enjoying it even as my anger rises.
Brit Hume, or as I like to now call him: Shit Fume.
Someone get the Febreze out again, this Fox-bot is letting loose with another stinker.
-GSD
And Marcy,
It was a pleasure meeting you last week in NYC. I tried to email you the name of that kitschy store in Ann Arbor, but my emails kept getting sent back.
It’s Kaleidescope at 217 S. State St. (at least it was there about five years ago).
Thanks again for all of your hard work on this case.
Tithonia @ 10
elegant and graceful
commented on this downstairs – somewhere in these threads and I believe it was long before the trial – someone called out something called Title 28 and Title 50 wherein they are required to explain to Congress, in writing, just why they did not do this – I think the term was ‘exception reports’
feel like I’m being somewhat of a pest here – but you guys created all us Plamensteins :)
“Now, let me explain, for those who have been confused by Toensing’s perma-headfake.”
Now there’s a bobblehead I’d actually buy!
Noodle overcooked. Al Abudente.
Thanks emptywheel. If you have time or care to respond, I am interested in any opinion you have as to why Comstock chose
ToensingToesuck. Was gender a concern, because of Valerie? Could they find no one better? All she did was piss off Waxman, I realize that may play well at 1600 Pennsylvania, but I’m not sure it helps with the larger cause.Also are she and Joe pissed off at Rove for spending all his money on a Democrat, Bob
gold barsLuskin? Was she solely trying to advertise for GOP clients?I couldn’t agree more with what you said about Valerie’s calm. She was extremely articulate and quietly passionate, a true patriot. It was a thundering demonstration of patriotism and a quiet but devastating indictment of patriarchy.
Know how you could tell that Toensing screwed the pooch?
She was all but ignored in the MSM stories on the hearing. If her “I wrote the IIPA” blather — which was obviously intended to shoot down Plame — hadn’t backfired on her, it would have got nearly as much ink as Valerie Plame herself.
But since there is no way to spin this in Toensing’s favor, it was ignored by the media.
It was so obvious that the Republicans couldn’t get any one but Davis and Lynnie Westmoreland to show up,
but your descriptions, expecially the Republican lawyers laughing at Toensing…
Priceless!
Marcy;
Thanks, as always, your stuff is clarifying.
Seems as if Ms. Toensing’s still got some splainin’ to do, isn’t that why the record was kept open?
Isn’t the decider the guy who decide’s things? If the decider said that they were going to investigate then why was there no investigation of the leaking of classified material (Valerie’s name)? Would not the lack of an investigation of treason be treason itself? Bush called for an investigation according to the law as Waxman notes there should have been one. Since only bush has the power to countermand his own words, the decider has implicated himself! I smell cover up and impeachment! That and more lame excuses from Dean Broder!
i’ve linked the video
of the waxman hearing
on my site at this spot.
you’ll need to have windows media
player installed, and may need
to accept the active x prompt,
but it will stream onto your
screen — well worth the ‘lectrons. . .
thanks again for a great piece, emptywheel. . .
it is well-past time to demand
explanations — in short, first person,
sentences, free of clutter-speak — from
the office of dick cheney.
JEP @ 22
Yes, Waxman flat out told her that he was going to keep the record open to correct her inaccuracies. She was insufferable, I wanted to throw something at my teevee more than a few times.
Field Marshall Tom Delay (Hey, isn’t that a French name?) gets a lesson from Retired Vice Admiral Sestak.
“At one point, DeLay claimed that places like Bahrain and Qatar wouldn’t accept U.S. troops who had redeployed out of Iraq. Sestak put his hand on DeLay’s arm and informed him that the U.S. military already has bases in those countries.”
Delay is just another word for put-off.
-GSD
tbsa @ 25
I loved the look on her face when he said that!
Did anyone ask Valerie if she had ever personally met Libby or Cheney? The testimony by Addington when Scooter asks how he would know if he met a covert agent, speaks to the importance of this question.
Valerie was not asked if she had met them, however, she was asked whether or not any of them had phoned her to appoligize for what they had done to her.
Thank you for the post..you have helped educate me me. Good work all involved.
So you know..bought and am reading your book. You do a good job of making straight the convoluted machinations, mendacity and hubris this group of thugs has spun.
Nice overall wrap-up of Friday’s hearings Emptywheel, and I think the various conclusions you draw from it in this post are accurate. I see nothing that I would differ/quibble with you on this post of yours. Again, thank you for your very hard work and I look forward to the time my local library finally gets a copy of your book (I would order it save I am unable to because of income reasons and the fact I have never had a credit card, which makes online purchasing a bit difficult…) as from all that I have seen regarding that book it is an excellent reference work on the Plame Betrayal and the way this GOP government have done all they can to pretend nothing bad happened here despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Elliott @ 28
It was priceless wasn’t it…
Marcy,
Thanks again for all the great work you and the other FDLers have done to keep things clarified.
I wonder what Toestink could have said/done to make her look any WORSE than she did on Friday.
Fitz!
From Scott Horton’s St. Patrick’s Day email:
The Prosecutor, and Future Attorney General? Today being St Patrick’s Day, it’s time to throw a bouquet to a Hibernian. My pick is Patrick Fitzgerald. In a day when federal prosecutors around the country are under a cloud, Fitzgerald shows that in some places a proud tradition has been maintained. Earlier this week, Fitzgerald was invited to speak to Henry Waxman’s Oversight Committee. He declined. It was an opportunity for political limelight. But as usual, Fitzgerald showed appropriate prosecutorial restraint. His comments have likewise shown beyond any doubt that an interest in justice is always uppermost in his mind, as it should be. Today, Fitzgerald speaks at an ABA function in Dublin, and he calls for respect for international and foreign law. That may seem innocuous enough. But in the age of Bush, that’s a virtual act of insubordination – and another reason to admire this quiet, cautious, professional figure. There are a few Republicans in this country who live to the traditions of Abraham Lincoln. Patrick Fitzgerald is one. And today, Andrew Cohen concludes his four-part WaPo series entitled The Case Against Alberto Gonzales with an appeal for the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as Attorney General. He won’t be Bush’s pick, that much is certain – but a clear-eyed president in the future?
Faux update-Hume claimed that Valerie outed herself by having breakfast with Kristoff. He claims covert CIA agents aren’t supposed to talk to the media, and if they do they have to report it to their bosses. He assumes she was interviewed, rather than having breakfast and being social like normal people do every freakin’ day! Joe was invited to speak at the Democratic event, Valerie was his guest. When most people attend events, they bring their spouse. It’s normal. The breakfast was the next day, after Joe’s speech (iirc).
Here are some facts for Britney Hume and other fools:
#1-It wasn’t classified information that Valerie Wilson existed.
#2-It wasn’t classified information that Valerie was married to Joe Wilson.
#3-It was classified information that Valerie worked for the CIA.
It’s that simple.
I thought one of the most important things was the statement from CIA Director Gen. Hayden about Plame’s covert status which Waxman read.
“At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.”
This has removed any doubt about Plame’s status. That Republican talking point seems to be fading away. The statement also blows away the “she was just a desk jockey” denial.
It’s posted here:
http://oversight.house.gov/Doc…..-43341.pdf
One reason why Toensing is stuck on the IIPA is because she is one of the authors of it back when she worked at DOJ, and a convicted CIA turncoat (Agee?), revealed names of some of his covert CIA colleagues. So Toensing thinks this makes her an expert on the IIPA, which in a sense it does. However, it is a terribly written law almost impossible to enforce, and no one has ever been convicted on it to my knowledge. To prove someone guilty of the IIPA you have to demonstrate the accused had prior knowledge of the agent’s status, intent to harm, and actual damage done.
Which may be one reason why Fitz avoided a charge based on the IIPA law. He went for something he could indict and convict on. Ultimately, this may have been a mistake because it leaves the issue hanging in the air, we will never know, but that is what he did. And, if Fitz had gone for the IIPA charge, he probably would have had to drag Cheney in, a dubious proposition since that would run into executive privilege issues.
Marcy:
Excellent post, as usual. Just finished watching Wolf Blitzer, who treated the whole hearing as OK-she-had-her-say-story’s-over. I emailed him and suggested that he go back and watch the entire hearing and pay attention to Mr. Knodell’s testimony. Hinted there might be a story “worthy of a journalist of your calibre.” Thank heavens snark doesn’t travel through the toobz well.
Oh and I love the mental gymnastics and the syndrome of cognitive dissonance from the people who claim that at the same time Valerie Plame was just a desk jockey at the CIA, she also had the authority to send former Ambassadors on intelligence missions.
These Republicans on the committee can’t get it thru their damaged brains that if someone works at the CIA, there’s a chance that they are covert and if they work at the counterproliferation division of the Directorate of OPERATIONS!! they are most definitely COVERT!! To think someone like Libby or Cheney wouldn’t know this after working in government for decades, means one of two things and in both cases they should be put in prison.
IANAL
1. Complicity (treason)
2. Incompetance (gross criminal negligence)
I put a picture up top that I snapped at the hearing, showing Valerie behind the wall of cameras.
It also shows a rather empty row of Republican committee seats.
tbsa @ 31
Next to Pelosi, Waxman is probably the most powerful congressman in the House. He was pissed off. She should be losing sleep.
dreamcatcher @ 37
Bush 41 signed an executive order regarding this issue. The outing of Valerie was a clear violation of this executive order. The administration was supposed to have conducted an investigation on the matter which was NEVER done. My theory is Darth Vader went to the CIA and demanded Valerie’s information then disseminated said info through “scooter and KKKarl” when Mister Wilson exposed his lie to the American people.
To the lawyers here — When Brit Hume claims that Valerie Plame lied under oath about who suggested Joe to go to Niger, is that something she could take him to court over?
dreamcatcher @ 37
There has been one conviction under the statute.
When Davis asked Valerie if the director of the CIA ever TOLD her she was covert, being impeccably honest, she ultimately said no (kind of goes without saying when a cover identity set up for you). Though she’s too classy to do so, I wish she’d added, “Did the speaker of the house ever tell you you were a congressman?”
Pachacutec @ 40
Pach, great shot. Was that taken from where you and Marcy were seated? I was watching on Friday, trying to figure out where you might be.
I’ve been waiting for this post since the hearing. Thank you, Marcy!
thank you marcy – much appreciated
Political Cartoon:
Valerie Plame is standing outside a house, holding a newspaper with the headline “CIA: Plame Covert”, in one hand, while the other hand is raised to the door.
Inside the house sit Boris & Natasha. Boris is reading the same paper. He says to Natasha:
“Victoria, there’s a kNOCk at the door”
Elliott @
28
I loved it when he all but accused her of lying about her age.
“We’ll be checking that out, too.”
I was, like, “Oh, NO he DIH-UN’T!!”
That was not from my seat. I got up and positioned myself for that shot.
TRex @ 47
Probably not as much as you were waiting for the B-52’s!
tbsa @ 42
Judging by Toensing’s testimony, IIPA was the only thing she did in her life and she wasn’t going to let anyone forget it. Even if one weren’t familiar with the case, Toensing’s continual harping on IIPA made her seem pathetic. There’s a sitcom mother she resembles, but I haven’t placed her yet.
As for Bush pere’s executive order, it’s another example of Bush fils trying to best his dad. I hope someone is keeping track. The list is long, and quite delicious by now.
Thanks for the recap and perspectives, ew, as always.
Question – I asked this in a thread the other day but haven’t learned anything: What do we already know about the higher ups in Office of Administration to whom Knodell reports? In the hearing he mentioned a Tom Dreyer, a Sandra Evans, and a so-and-so (Allan?) Swindeman (couldn’t quite make out the name on tv). Am I just ignorant about commonly known admin figures? They are all “Office of Administration.” What is the scope of this office? Is basically everybody in the WH admin part of the OA (like, would Rove qualify?), or is it a smaller circle than that? Might they be the sort of people Waxman’s letter could lead to next as far as why no investigation was undertaken (going up the chain, of course)?
tbsa @ 42
Such is the irony of history that the son breaks a law the father authorized.
Oedipus Wrecks?
AZ Matt @ 52
You know, that was awesome, but if I had honestly been given a choice between being at the hearing and meeting Valkyrie Plame or staying home and meeting the B-52’s, I would have to think for a minute.
G’day, pups.
*
*xyz says:
March 18th, 2007 at 8:31 am
TV Notice.
I just saw a notice on CSPAN that they will be re-airing at least part of their Valerie Plame testimony coverage beginning at 3:40 ET this afternoon.
————————————–
View the entire hearing at the link below at your pleasure. The hearing is from the “recent archives” page. One would think it w/b highlighted on cspan’s home page? Also, this is stream-on-demand, so one can drag the radial button to FF or reverse to the best parts. The other (Valerie Plame) hits on this page are great, too. Enjoy.
http://12.170.145.161/search/b…..erie_plame
TRex @ 56
Ah, Life’s little choices…
OT: I hadn’t noticed this mentioned here at FDL in the past couple of days. The WH Correspondent’s Association has decided to allow Helen Thomas to keep her seat in the front row of the newly renovated WH Briefing Room. CNN has been given the other seats in the front row, and Fox did not get any front row seats, despite their request.
Each row of the newly renovated room apparently has two fewer seats than before (more rows, fewer seats per row). There was talk about moving Thomas back a few rows to make way for Fox. That has officially been nixed.
Here’s the story from mediabistro.com’s TV Newser:
CNN gets the front row, along with Helen Thomas
Cheers to Ms. Thomas, who definitely deserves to sit front and center, as she has for decades. I’ve enjoyed her tenacity in putting every politician’s Press Secretary on the hot seat. Here’s to many more years of that!
LotF at 59: That is the topic of my Late Nite post, dude. Don’t wear it out.
TheOtherWA @ 35
Of course it is which is why the GOP shills are now reduced to bald faced lying since reality is that simple. They are employing a classic grad student approach, if your cannot dazzle them with your brilliance baffle them with bullshit. That is all Hume and those like him have left, as you so clearly demonstrated with your swift evisceration of Hume’s idiotic attempts to claim Plame outed herself because she went as her husband’s guest to a breakfast where her husband the noted former Ambassador to Iraq before GWI started as well as to various African nations including Niger spoke to a reporter also attending the breakfast about his work (not hers, nor is there any evidence I have ever seen that she spoke to any reporters about anything prior to her cover being blown regarding security issues, I qualify because she could have talked to reporters acting under her cover as an energy consultant). The level of delusion behind thinking that makes any logical sense let alone can be treated as fact given the lack of *ANY* corroborating evidence underscores the bullshit nature of this approach.
Not to mention Hume’s other aspect to this claim he made. The reporter claims two sources, one of which is confirmed as Wilson so in Hume’s “mind” that means automatically the other source can be no one else than Plame despite zero evidence to support any such conclusion. Yet this is the Washington Bureau Chief of FoxNEWS?!? If he is so clearly either ignorant/stupid about how reality is Washington works he should be fired/out of a job, and if he is acting not as a journalist but as a party operative/shill (which his conduct today as well as many times prior on all sorts of issues not just this one clearly demonstrates/shows/proves) he should also be fired for blatantly corrupting the responsibility/role of his job/profession to be loyal to facts first and not political agendas/ideologies first. Oh wait, that’s right, he works for FOXNEWS which is a GOP aligned “news” network so of course their Washington news bureau must be is a true GOP loyalist before any other loyalties to facts, the profession of journalist, and indeed as a responsible citizen of the democratic society/culture of America.
FEH!
well woe be unto me for disagreeing with ya, but it really felt more like March Madness, Madness, Madness
for once, I wasn’t happy merely bc a Dem had the microphone. outside of the pleasure at hearing Valerie so clearly speak to the issues at long last – it was stunning to see how disciplined and cohesive Coach W had prepared his team
during Toesuck’s ‘testimony’ my co workers and guests were treated to sight of me jumping up and down, pointing at the screen, yelling “omg, Trap Press !”
Did I mention that when my brother and I showed up at the club on Friday night, we were dressed almost exactly alike? That happens to us a lot.
ManagedChaos @
39
I was just thinking, if we give the repubs a benifit of the doubt, in believing Valerie Plame was a “desk Jockey” (OK, I just vurped as a typed that), could she possibly be working at a computer with a phone at her desk, thus allowing her to keep in contact with oversea opps and other “contacts”? Even if she wasn’t physically overseas, she could’ve been “working” overseas via phone and email… and still need Covert/Undercover status. Where was the front company Brewster Jennings located? I don’t know how this stuff works, but I could see a reason why she would still need covert status, even if she doesn’t go overseas.
Obviusly it’ll be long time if ever that we’ll find out how she actually did her job, but regardless, the CIA felt it necessary to keep her status Covert. The WH blew her cover. No matter what Toensing babbles on about.
TRex @ 60
Cool – I hope you’ll be giving Fox a nice raspberry a la “ha ha nanny nanny nanny LOSERS!”
By the way, if you did have the situation wherein you had to choose between dinner with Valerie Plame or the B52s, I think most of us would be very green with envy. Ok, we’d probably just hate ya outright for having such a cool life. ;)
beautiful, articulate post, marcy.
Montag @ #44 – good catch!
Marcy – excellent and succinct.
looseheadprop – if you’re reading – Insta-De-Classification and Other Bedtime Stories was one of the best essays I’ve ever read here! I found it bizarre that some readers found it too long. I found it absorbing. I learned a lot.
Brit Hume – if you’re lurking – go fuck yourself with Dick Cheney’s shotgun.
Regarding the Hearing on Friday, is there any way to get a written transcript of the hearing for those of us unable to run video files? If anyone knows where one can go to read the hearings I would be most appreciative and grateful.
Thanks.
tbsa @
42
Do you have a link for that executive order and/or its number, please?
Howdy, Houghton MI!!
Had to do that, sorry.
Fiyero @ 54
My understanding is that Swinderman is the political appointee, while the others are government employees.
OA does the nuts-and-bolts day-to-day administrative affairs for the WH, makes sure there are people to cut the grass, do the secretarial work, and (not very well, apparently) handles the ordinary security matters not covered by the Secret Service.
So, yeah, there would be opportunity to work up the ladder, but, I would guess that Waxman got the answer he wanted from Knodell–no investigation done–and that made George the Younger a liar, which was part of purpose of this hearing. Having created that suspicion, it will, no doubt, generate more. :)
scory @
4
Pelosi didn’t say it would always be.
montag 71 – thanks.
Scotian @
68
Since Marcy alluded in her post to the Congressional Record, you should be able to read therein a printed transcript of the hearing.
MODS-Please purge #25. This obsession is quite enough!
Marcy… thank you for the update…
Finally able to get your book here in Phoenix… every time the bookstores received a shipment, poof they were gone… They had just received a shipment the day I bought the second to the last book and my friend bought the last one.
Watched the hearing through the first time, caught most of it again a second time. You know, watching Toestink the second time was more enjoyable knowing that in the peppered through it were the smackdowns. Think Waxman’s office needs to follow up on perjury to congress investigation …..
Don’t you love the smell of Repugs getting roasted?
LandOfTheFree @ 65
Even people who hang out with rock stars have to wash their clothes and scoop the cat box. Which actually is what I ought to be doing with this beautiful afternoon. Or I should at least make some effort to get outside. It’s lovely here.
Marcy, when you are called by Representative Waxman to help by using facts you have sifted through and seemingly no one else has much bothered with, you might aim for clearing up the serious difference between exposing a covert CIA officer on the spot, with no advance warning to the officer or to the Agency, and that of declassifying in the same way classified material such as the NIE. I cannot fathom that anyone can think there is not a big difference between the two but I can’t see that anyone has made the point.
Hume said Rove’s involvement was limited to his stating to Novak: “I heard that too.” How convenient for Hume to forget the Cooper conversation. I will say the Fox panel in general left the impression that there were serious question yet unanswered about the Adminstrations involvement. But Hume and Kristol were particularly offensive in posturing about things about which they had obviously failed to take the time to inform themselves. Kriston in fact seemed to have that “deer in the headlights” look as he groped to appear relavent.
*ilbo @
75
that was wierd, eh?
Delurking long enough to thank Marcy and tell ET at 67 he’s right, especially the last comment. I was sickened by Clinton’s mishaps in office even though they were of a personal nature and would not even try to defend his tryst. What amazes me is the the lengths the Hume and others will defend the President even though it’s not a personal nature. It actually endangers us all…..
Brit Hume – if you’re lurking – go fuck yourself with Dick Cheney’s shotgun.
ET @ 67….. tell us how you really feel, don’t hold back there…..
Kriston = Kristol
Brit Hume – if you’re lurking – go fuck yourself with Dick Cheney’s shotgun.
I second that emotion!
Oh, I refreshed the whole page to find a new photo taken by Pachacutec in the hearing room!!
Groovy!!
hey fyi – and standing apologies if prev. posted
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) co-chair a meeting on the national security implicatings of disclosing a covert agent’s identity. Former intelligence agents participate in the meeting, co-sponsored by the Sen. Democratic Policy Committee and Democratic members of the Hse. Gov. Reform Comm.
7/22/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 15 min.: CSPAN3
tbsa @ 84
Bet that would be an instance where Hume would be all for trigger locks….
Thanks Marcy. Am I the only one who thinks the presence of the pink “chick” standing in the back didn’t help promote the gravitas of the hearing ?
Please don’t go all “freedom of expression” on my tail. I’m just sayin’….
One of my favorite parts of the hearing was at the end when cspan let the camera roll on Toensing alone, scared and broken. I hope she is held accountable for her lies that day.
fahrender @ 80
It’s Sunday. Seems I’ll have to vaccum twice as hard.
i was dosing on and off during MTP… was there any mention of the Valerie Plame Hearing? Anything from Timmy?
Part of cover is cover.
Donating to a political campaign establishes a paper trail that you are a real person, behaving like a real person. Same with going to a breakfast as a spouse. What was Joe Wilson supposed to say? My wife couldn’t attend because she is uncover.
And I would like to ask the question. Even if she was stateside, (like a soldier returning from deployment), could she have been sent overseas at a future date, therefore keeping cover and acting like a normal spouse and American was important to her potential future re-deployment (something goppers should understand — unending overseas re-deployments)
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 69
It’s in the hearing transcripts. I can’t remember it off the top of my head and I have to run or I’d look it up for ya.
I notice almost daily here that some readers are unaware how easy it is to watch C-SPAN programs if you have a computer built in the past eight to ten years. Here’s a primer:
Watching C-SPAN video files on your computer:
Go to C-SPAN’s home page.
You can watch C-SPAN 1, 2 or 3 live by clicking on the print just to the left of the little red watch icon about two inches down in the center of the screen.
That click redirects you to a page where you’re given three choices for each of the three channels. If you don’t have Windows Media Player (WMP) or RealPlayer, you can click a download icon on this page.
The info listed next to each of the three C-SPAN channels on this page isn’t always up to date, so if you’ve been directed here by a comment at a blog that something is now being played on C-SPAN 3, but the info on this page says otherwise, click on C-SPAN 3 anyway, and the real program will probably show up.
If you want to watch archived programs, from the home page go down about six inches. To the right of the left-hand column you’ll see recent programs. Listed below that title are the most often watched recent programs in their archive.
If you don’t find a very recent program in that list, go to the bottom of the list and click on all recent programs. That brings you the beginning of a series of pages which go back chronologically in order through their main cache of recently archived programs.
C-SPAN rarely does web archive updates through weekends. Usually, they’ll put Saturday and Sunday’s Washington Journals up, but little else until about 1:00 PM EDT on Monday.
Can Hume be sued for slander?
because she didn’t have a choice when Rove called
after the hearings, a cab somewhere inside the beltway . . .
VickiTerry: It wasn’t him,KarlCharley, it was you. Remember that night in the Garden you came down to my dressing room and you said, “Kid, this ain’t your night. We’re going for the price on Wilson”Scotian says:
March 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Regarding the Hearing on Friday, is there any way to get a written transcript of the hearing…
—————————–
Below is Ms. Plame’s testimony. The balance doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere (via my cursory search). Waxman’s committee site w/b worth a check tomorrow (as well as a generic search).
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0316.html
Tim @ 88
Anderson Cooper actually interviewed her. She served in the Navy. I thought it was inappropriate as well, but her heart seemed to be in the right place.
Scotian –
Hearing transcript Part I (scroll down)
Transcript Part II
since there is very little good that can come of any hearing, investigative committee, FBI investigation, people like Toensing can only deride and confuse. this is because that is her job. she is a fox news reporter, she is designed to speak to confuse and look officious.
this government that isn’t, has only one remaining thing they can rely on. getting campaign funds for legal defense purposes. The members are going to jail en masse, and they have only their truly stupid base to try to protect them. since these religious right and the generally paranoid are so retarded with regards to truth and law, they are spoken to on the level they understand. “president good” “democrats terrorists” and they don’t seem quite smart enough to get this up off their backs.
so, we can expect more and more outrageous behavior. We have seen enough to have taken Nixon out 2 years before he was forced to resign by comparison, yet they still hold power, and there are no criminal investigations WRT Bush and Cheney. truly amazing
so it is up to us to minimize this last group of the gop’s stooges. I want to announce to you that call yourselves the “values voters” that this administration worships satan, is mostly all gay, has sold your children to arabs for a profit, enjoys using your donations to the church to play golf and go on sex vacations. Your leaders are involved in the sex trade in the orient on a constant basis. your leaders have forced US attorneys to halt cases of sex trade, billions in bribery to take jobs from you and give them to someone else in this country and many other countries.
we want to thank you, because your slow but stupefying acknowledgment of these facts will doom you to the fate of the free range chicken. you will get to run around for a little while both with your head attached, and removed.
surfsup @
14
Cool, thanks!
J. Thomason @ 83
And here I was thinking you were making a play on Klingon
Thanks, MT — great post and summary of the day. I’d like to ask Chairman Waxman to take some lessons from the day, as well. Giving our freshmen a chance to ask questions — wonderful. Where were Bruce Braley and Christopher Murphy?
I hope the Chairman reflects on who used their time wisely, and apportions future questioning based on that. Congresswoman Watson was magnificent; I won’t soon forget the face she made when she spat out “Robert Novak, of all people!” Classic. Alas, Delegate Holmes Norton needs to prepare better and use her time more wisely than she did on Friday. The Republic is at state, madame; stop shuffling your papers.
And, Big Hank — more Paul Hodes, please!
PS Have we heard anything from Pach about his conversation with dismissed Art Curator Juror?
If the Dems do their job and follow through with holding many of these (from the Toensings to Cheney) authoritarians acccountable, we (the country) may need some sort of PTSD plan for the 29 percenters who will, like Toensing, be scared and broken. They are such an angry bunch when in winning positions. I shudder to think how they will act next.
Waxman hearing complete video?
http://indictdickcheney.blogsp…..aring.html
*4hrs plus
TeddySanFran @ 102
If she were amenable to having her remarks made public, yeah, that would be interesting.
Land of the Free 59 and TRex 60 – Liveblogging from RevDeb’s house, we noticed that too!!! Rock on, Helen!!
LandOfTheFree @
58
shout out to ms thomas. good for you!
“Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”
Casablanca (1942)
o/t
crikey – Kristoff – ‘Dems should stop biting their tongues on Israel’
Kristoff
without finishing his piece, I’ll bet it’s really a jab at HRC but interesting reading nonetheless
Oldtree @99: “…people like Toensing can only deride and confuse. This is because that is her job.”
Bingo. Watching her on Friday, I could only think that she’d been sent to do a job and, by golly, she was going to do it. Spin. Keep pushing all those talking points she and her pals have been pushing for two years, even though they’ve been refuted.
For my money, she jumped the shark when she kept insisting that Valerie Plame Wilson was not covert, and that she’d know better than Wilson herself, or Hayden. When I read that she’d be testifying, I steeled myself for her to make the rounds on the Sunday shows. Hmmm…
ET at 67 -i don’t think anyone found LHP’s bedtime stories too long, just that LHP was concerned that we might! Everyone started yelling, no, more! more!
Pectopah @ 92
Re “cover:”
Toestink mentioned Valerie’s FEC record for two reasons, I think. She managed to bring Al Gore into the hearing, via Valerie’s contribution, thus making the “what party are you?” point again. Maybe they weren’t sure Three Commandments Westmoreland would git ‘er done when questioning Valerie. Secondly, though, and more disturbing: Toestink mentioned Brewster-Jennings, which iirc no one else did. I wonder if B-J was CIA offlimits, and she used Valerie’s $1000 contribution to Gore to get the company name into the record?
tbsa @ 83
Is anyone aware of the existence of polls on the credibility of national news anchors such as Williams, Hume, Wallace, Mr. Potatohead, George Stephanopolous – good bless you – and the like?
I imagine the drop in ratings at Fox is accompanied by less favorable ratings on credibility. If the numbers are eye-poppingly bad, it might be a good way to attack there false statements and diminish their influence.
The hearing was rivitting, thanks for your great understanding and explainations Marcy. I have a off topic question for anyone, is the the Patrick
Fitzgerald Blog a fabrication or real? Wondering before I read through the archives….
Waxman, Fitz, and FDL, you give us hope!
“I thought one of the most important things was the statement from CIA Director Gen. Hayden about Plame’s covert status which Waxman read.
“At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.””
Why did it take so long for Gen Heyden to come forth with this statement?? Anybody? Wouldn’t that have shut up some of these conservative nitwits?
Hope Toesting reads these comments. That would get her dander up.
Fiyero @
53
My understanding–and I haven’t done research on this–is that Knodell works on the civil servant administrative side that keeps the WH running. Only the top person is a political appointee (though since he’s just a few layers down, he’s probably politically acceptable.
But it would make sense to figure out who these people are, because it sure sounded like Congressman Hodes was getting the details to be able to do this research…
Is it just me, or is Toensing totally Cruella de Vil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruella_de_Vil
The juror had no statement, other than that she found the Waxman hearing interesting. Frankly, I think she’s better off making no statement.
In fact, my advice to jurors has been to lay low and avoid controversy or the spotlight. I think they’re good people and should protect themselves from the political firezone, so as not to be used either as tools or targets of the right wing.
As maddening as it was to hear Toensing constantly trying to repeat that Plame did not have cover as defined by the IIPA statute, for which the obvious reply seemed to be: if you are claiming co-authorship of the statute, what sense did it make to write a law that, by your interpretation, fails to protect undercover agents?
JPL @
80
well said – i don’t think the republicans hear this enough. plenty of us democrats spoke against clinton when he lied. its quite revealing that so few republicans will speak against the bush administration regarding their transgretions.
TeddySanFran @ 112
Not sure what you mean. Brewster Jennings was a front company–energy consultants–and there were people there who only did that sort of work, to keep the pretense up. So, if she listed that as her place of employment to provide the proper disclosure for the FEC, that would be quite above board and, in fact, absolutely necessary to maintain her cover.
Wouldn’t do any good for her to have said “CIA” or “US Government” on the disclosure.
It was only after her identity was revealed that people put two and two together and came to the correct assumption that Brewster Jennings was a front. I don’t think Toensing would have any success spinning that one….
Liberal-at-large @ 97
Thanks, I was not having much luck with the Congressional Record searching so far. Which I thank Mr. Parrish for recommending as well btw. I did take that suggestion to see if I could find anything but perhaps it has not been published there yet? I also thank cbl for the two Raw Story links also. I think that’s everyone I have to thank for their swift and helpful responses, if I missed anyone I do apologize for the lapse/oversight…:)
Ed*ard Teller @ 93. Great post.
You can also subscribe to the CSPAN RSS feed if you have a newsreader. Bloglines offers their web-based newsreader for free. Within a busniess day of any CSPAN program, the link to the CSPAN video pops up in your newsreader. (The newsreader checks the website for new content.)
It any easy way to follow what CSPAN finds important enough to cover. For example, who’s testyfing about what, what’s in debate in the house and senate, what hearings are being conducted, tony’s daily snowjob, state’s daily presser, etc
Rayne @
69
Haven’t hooked up with Houghton yet. Hoping to hear from him soon.
1,458 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Marcy and the Firepup Patriots:
First of all, you deserve the Presidential Medal of Freedom for your committment to and on-going work toward getting the truth of the Bush junta’s actions out to the huddled masses out here. Secondly, the breadth of your intelligence and sharpness of your wit astound me and insure that your country is gunna call on you sometime in the future to help advance our democracy and insure it’s safety.
But I have a concern about limitations , so far, on what the public is being allowed to understand about the outing of the CIA operative and were it fits in the overall strategy of the Bush administration’s war on our democracy. Specifically, Valerie’s outing is being framed within the context of attempting to discredit Joe Wilson and silencing any potential whistle-blowers within the intelligence community. However, I believe the the real reason for the outing was to destroy the CIA’s ability to monitor and, when necessary, intercede in the development of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation. This is at the heart of the next step of the Project for the New American Century. The fascists are even at this moment when their lawlessness is being exposed, stickin’ to the plan…Iran is the next target and we no longer have an intelligence operation that can inform us as to the real status of Iran’s nuclear program. I don’t believe that the Chimpenfeurer will get away with attacking Iran but that attack will set Iran back and maybe, as in chess, force a response that will allow for the complete disintegration of Iraq and the splitting up of it’s territory and resources. The Bush regime will not survive such actions but neither will Iraq and Iraq’s neighbors will be unable to contain the effects of the splintering of Iraq. In the meantime, the American corporate front is , at this moment, dismantling in the United States, taking the equity out of the oil market and the US treasury and relocating to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (with the cash).
If I am right, the United States will be left with a bankrupt treasury, a broken military and no ability to counter the power of the corporations in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. Remember we know that the corporatists have at least 125,000 mercenaries and contract workers in the field and their access to ordinance and battlefield technology including satellites is unlimited.
The American oligarchy and the corporate army that advances its interests have already won unless we get them all politically and apply the terrible swift sword of the law against them. That means impeachment and criminal trials (RICO anyone?) and trials in the Hague…we must do what was not done in 1975 and kill the beast that cultivates and feeds on war and death.
Valerie Wilson and what happened to her is not just a political scandal…it is an treasonous assault on the safety of the United States.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THERE’S SOME BAD SHIT APPROACHIN’ THE FAN!!
I like this better
Brel1 @ 115
It’s equally important to note that none of these people killed the investigation:
- Ashcroft (who recused himself)
- Comey
- Goss
- Negroponte
Each one of these people could have yanked the investigation if they had seen any indication that Valerie Plame was not covert under the definitions outlined by IIPA and Sect. 793.
But they didn’t — they couldn’t, even at the pleasure of the president they serve.
Ashcroft pointed recused himself because of this investigation; why would he bother to do so if Plame was not covert?
I think I would have slipped this line into the hearings on Friday, ask Miss Vicky if these folks with a lot more authority and actual security clearance might have been mistaken.
I watched Valerie and I watched Toensing, and I don’t think you have to be well versed on the facts of the case to see the difference between someone who is speaking the truth and someone who is tap-dancing around it, or, in Toensing’s case, trying to stomp it out of existence.
The more importanrt element of the hearing, for those who aren’t deep in the weeds, is the layman’s impression of the people giving testimony. I am, admittedly, biased, but Valerie was simple, direct, authoritative, and credible, and Toensing struck me as a weasely lawyer, and not all lawyers (e.g., Fitz) give that impression. And Emptywheel is right – Valerie Plame is now a human being, not an abstraction, and a very sympathetic one at that.
My sense is that unbiased people watching would come away believing Plame, because she was talking about her life, and not about IIPA or Barry Goldwater’s libertarian concerns about restrictive statutes. I’d call it a win, except that Valerie Plame – and all of us – lost in this ugly episode, and we’re just looking for justice and accountability. So we’re one step closer to that, at least.
tbsa @ 11:27 am -
Thank you for your reply. Does Executive Order 12958, which someone at the hearing mentioned, sound familiar? If so, Bill Clinton signed that order, which was superseded sometime in 2003 by Executive Order 13292.
emptywheel @ 124
It was the Houghton-Hancock one, EW. I figure the Houghton Lake one was probably using a different IP addy today.
Wonder what the weather’s like in Houghton-Hancock? Been thinking alot about Yooper country since I have to head that way this summer for a spell.
TRex @
46
EPU’d now, but seconding the thanks!
OT, but not completely because it’s about the war: Click on my name and you’ll be linked to my blog which features photos taken today at the Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition’s display marking the 4th anniversary of the war. I snapped the pics while the volunteers were still setting it up.
It’s a great group and if you’re in Ohio and have it in you to volunteer, please do.
Content is added to the blog regularly, so here’s the URL to the specific post: http://newsgrinder.blogspot.co…..tones.html
Rayne @ 130
“It’s da second veek uv deer camp, an’ all da boyz are here…”
Seriously: H/H is lovely, lovely territory.
cbl @ 85
Friday, July 22, 2005
Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
Former Intelligence Officials Testify About Damage Caused by Outing of Covert CIA Agent
At a hearing co-chaired by Rep. Waxman and Senator Byron Dorgan, several former intelligence officials testify about the damage to national security caused by the White House outing of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson.
Documents and Links
Rep. Waxman’s Opening Statement
Rep. Waxman’s Opening Statement
Rep. Holt’s Opening Statement
Rep. Slaughter’s Opening Statement
Sen. Dorgan’s Opening Statement
Statement of James Marcinkowski
Statement of Larry C. Johnson
Statement of W. Patrick Lang
Witness Biographies
Fact Sheet: Administration Security Breaches Involving Valerie Plame Wilson
Fact Sheet: Karl Rove’s Nondisclosure Agreement
Hearing Transcript
C-SPAN Hearing Video
LINK
katymine @
81
you may enjoy some of the snark from this mornings thread:
Quebecois@97
“Then there’s Brit… Any time Juan woud state a fact, expose a basic reality, Brit would get a look that any alien abductee gets when he’s probed. ”
TeddySanFran @ 102
Well, Holmes Norton has a bit of time before she gets a vote, so maybe by then she’ll be effective.
The Art Curator (I came in at the end) didn’t say much, really.
I spent three hours last Friday afternoon combing through the comments at The FreeRepublic’s live blog of Waxman’s hearing. I posted them at ChicagoDyke’s Friday latenight post. They are at comments 39, 110, 115 and 126.
The freeper comments are both sad and hilarious. Overall, though, the impression is pathetic.
TeddySanFran @ 112
Interesting point. You might be onto something…
If the hearing wasn’t about the identities act, then Waxman should have stated that clearly as a way to cut off Toensing. Not that he is obliged to do so, it would have been to his advantage to do so. Alternatively he should have been prepared to argue she was covert under identities act.
I think one thing that has not been made clear by anyone that I have seen, is the “sand in eyes of the umpire” part by Fitzgerald. Thinking about this, Libby did not just slow the investigation until the leads were cold, rather by lying about his knowledge of it he did not have to answer other questions, like how he learned about it, and what he was told to do with the information by Cheney etc.
I thought Armitage said he saw Plume’s name in a memo from the CIA, and somehow he knew she was married to Wilson. Why would the CIA forward that information to the WH anyway. (Is this the same memo that she said she was requested to write?)
EP, Thanks, I USED TO BE a true Independent and living north of Atlanta will still vote for the less offensive of Republicans but it’s important to speak out. Often times I simply speak out for a strong middle class because I think that has made our life style, family values and economy great. Oh and by the way F..k Boortz’s fair to rich tax scheme.
Larry @ 139
THis is incorrect on several levels.
First, the memo was from the INR, State’s intell bureau. Valerie’s name got into that memo because a State Department analyst, Douglas Rohn, made a note about her in his own notes (he had no idea she was covert, he just knew she had some tie to the meeting and to Joe). And then INR used his notes to put toegether a memo. THe secret classification on that paragraph almost certainly relates to the discussion of the meeting, and not Plame, because no one in State knew she was covert.
And one more thing–there was no member that said, “She was requested to write.” There was the memo she was requested to write, but it is a different memo.
DrDave @ 117
That’s it! That’s exactly who I was thinking of but couldn’t place.
I have 2 questions about CIA’s responsibilities wrt Plame & tradecraft. Both came up at the hearings, but one I’ve had for a long time. Hopefully someone knows the answer.
1. When Robert Novak called the CIA to confirm that Plame worked there, why didn’t they do more to dissuade him from publiching the info? All the reports I’ve read on this indicate the CIA was pretty milquetoast in that regard.
2. If Plame was covert, why was her desk job in a known CIA facility? Shouldn’t Brewster Jennings have had a DC office she could have worked out of?
oldtree@99:
“since there is very little good that can come of any hearing, investigative committee, FBI investigation”
i beg to differ. are you an old enough tree to have been around during the 1970’s? catch any of the watergate hearings? see anyone receive a jail sentence? see any president’s resign?
Marcy. Great post. Thankyou!
Very nearly my favorite part of the Waxman hearings:
Toensing (over & over & over): babble babble babble attempted in response to questions from Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was clearly neither amused nor intimidated.
Rep Norton(promptly, at the start of each attempted babblesession):
“Reclaiming my time…”
- to my amazement, causing toebabble to shut up promptly and at least pretend to listen to another dandy zinger of a question, or repetition of one she had attempted to ignore.
BRAVO Rep. Norton!!!
OldCoastie @ 15
Some tributes bear repeating.
******************************************
Also, NorskeFlamethrower @ 125 says:
“. . . the real reason for the outing was to destroy the CIA’s ability to monitor and, when necessary, intercede in the development of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation.”
Been on my mind, too, for quite a while. This aim warrants the risks of the exposure far more than the tenuous nepotism smear.
Toensing on H&C Friday night (I was just flipping through) made the false accusation of a chronological “inconsistency” regarding the e-mail sent by Plame on Feb 12, 2002 (the one that got spun into accusations of nepotism) and the CIA task sheet that comes out at Cheney’s behest on the 13th.
Plame’s recent and heretofore unknown full account of the 12th – and of that e-mail – all make perfect sense, and there is NO inconsistency. The DIA report comes out on the 12th. Someone in OVP calls the CIA to look into it. The call is mentioned to Valerie, another officer overhears and chimes in with the suggestion that Joe Wilson might be a good candidate for looking into it. Valerie is not exactly thrilled about this, with two year old twins at home. At branch supervisor’s urging, she writes the e-mail.
The next day, Cheney formally tasks the CIA. So fucking what, Toensing?
That phone call on the 12th from OVP is not in doubt. For Toensing to suggest there is an inconsistency there is completely dishonest and par for the course for her.
Here’s the vid from Newshounds.
Here here, Norske! The only presidential candidate I see who would follow through with congress and as president accept even encourage fine tuning on presidential/executive powers is Kucinich.
He made clear in the hearing with his phrasing, “wide pattern,” (I loved that analogy since it works with Cheney and bird-shot) that the committee gets the big picture.
Larry @ 139
Norton DID so, I believe. Please see my 144. That’s what the exchanges I refer to in there were all about. She just NAILED Toensing on that.
Fiyero @ 54
I believe Office of Administration within the Office of the President are the folks who keep the adminstrative details, Mail room, secuirity, post its, coordianted.Even thoush the actuall doing of the stuff may be done by other agencies. But don’t rely on me about this.
TRex @ 77
Yeah, while you’re at it, why don’t you drop by my place and scoop the cat box & do some laundry… actually, I just went out for an hour because it is lovely here in Motown, too. Sunny, clear sky with just a couple of small puffy clouds. Not what we’re used to at this time of year. It it were just about 15 degrees warmer, I’d pump up the bike tires and go for a ride.
Crap – while typing this message, one of my cats just raided a yet-to-be-folded basket of clean clothes, and dragged a pair of my pajama pants across the house (from the basement, up the stairs, and to me… I know he means it as a gift, but now I have something else to wash…)
Adie – I wanted to respond to one of your posts from a couple nights ago (you responded back to me after I’d headed off to work). Your sonny and I have the career in common ;)
Marcy,
Great post. Thanks for all you do.
One thing made clear in Valerie’s testimony, I thought, was that she had some responsibility for the WMD investigation vis-a-vis Iraq. The “younger CIA official” who was upset after getting the call from the VP’s office worked for Valerie and came to her to discuss.
Now, the thing that’s not clear to me is this:
Couldn’t the motivation of the Administration in outing Valerie be as much about the fact that they didn’t like the answers her team of analysts were coming up with as it was about trying to undermine Joe Wilson?
Think about it: You’re a CIA Officer/Manager and you observe that another team’s Officer/Manager (Valerie) comes to a conclusion opposite the one you know the Administration wants it to come to. The message is unmistakeable. If you work at the CIA, you’ve got to come up with the answers the Administration wants or they won’t hesitate to take you out, even at the risk of prosecution.
Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere (including in your book which I have but have not yet finished) and I have not noticed.
What think you?
Thanks again.
lhp,
If you’re still here – thanks for yesterday’s rundown – Insta-De-Classification and Other Bedtime Stories. I’m distressed at the way Cheney’s office continues to finesse the separation of powers so friggin’ easily, with no serious accountability. There needs to be a new hearing set focusing on this distressing growth of almost unlimited power.
Thanks Marcy, lhp, montag for your comments on the Office of Administration. I bring up those other names because while Knodell is apparently the one who would be responsible for an investigation and none occurred and we’ve got that on the record, the next set of serious grilling questions would be why - and did anyone actually say DON’T investigate this, i.e. – people who work above him (and people who work above them). Cause that would be a whole ‘nother cover up, not just incompetence.
I think Henry left the record open so that he could go back to Hayden and get a “revised” statement from him saying, “I said ‘She was covert.’ There seems to be some confusion as to what I actually meant by that. What I actually meant was that she was covert. Let me spell it for you: C-O-V-E-R-T. Yes, even under the definitions of the IIPA. No, I didn’t write the IIPA, but I’m quite capable of reading the damn thing, and so are the lawyers at the CIA. Yes, I know what I’m talking about. I’m the fucking head of the CIA. It’s my job to know these things. I’m not sure how I can be any clearer here: She was covert.”
On CNN Late Edition Wolf Blitzer let Terry Jeffries have the final word on the Valerie Plame hearings. Basically, as a right wing shill, Jeffries said “it’s over”. I don’t have the transcript, but he summarily dismissed the hearings as a great way for Plame to sell her book and nothing more. And, as usual, Blitzer just sat there like the dummy he is. Even Carville, normally a loudmouth, kept quiet on this one. Maybe because his Harpy of a wife is up to her eyeballs in this mess??
LandOfTheFree @ 151
OMG: please tell more! ;->
eCAHNomics @ 141
As to your second question, Plame stated during the hearing that she and other officers are trained to make sure that they are not followed to work.
LandofTheFree
like… do you have as much “fun” as he does trying to get himself, his “implements”, & his instrument all thru airports safely these days? groan!
he’s gotten so he ALWAYS has the instrument out of the case & assembled, so he can keep the screeners from banging it around, and so he can toodle a coupl’a notes if he needs to in order to prove what it is, sigh. and of course the “implements” always have to be checked thru, with a prayer or 2 that they won’t be sent halfway around the world – ack!
Misinfomed @ 145
This makes more sense the longer I ponder it…there were more, even darker reasons for this outing I belive.
One more comment on the Waxman hearings: Notice how well Henry played this. The hearings came after the Libby convictions so that they wouldn’t hurt Fitz’s trial. But they hit before the sentencing. The odds of Libby getting shipped off to jail right after sentencing just went way up, and his chances of getting a pardon went down. Plame’s status is now part of the public record. I suspect that Fitz will be able to bring that up at sentencing. And Libby’s lawyers won’t be able to greymail it out. Nice.
I thought it was quite telling that, when the hearing was over, there was Victoria all by her lonesome, fumbling around to pull her paperwork together. Completely by herself, not a single person interested enough to even speak to her. A pariah.
bookwoman @ 162
oh, that was a delightful moment, wasn’t it ?!
Thanks to those that provided the Raw Story links to Plame’s testimony. I just finished reading it and one thing more than anything else was clear from it. The GOP members appear to be resting their main defence on the idea that since no one (so far at least) in the WH can be shown to have conclusively known Plame was covert then there was no wrongdoing. Yet there is an AFFIRMATIVE obligation to verify anything which might possibly be classified (which by definition any reference to a CIA employee certainly falls into) with a security officer before ever revealing it or even confirming it *EVEN* if it is already out there in the public media. That is what makes the behaviour and the reckless manner in which the WH folks discussed this so clearly wrongdoing, and the fact that the GOP Congressmen act like they do not understand this means one of only two possibilities. Either they are too uninformed to understand this rather basic issue regarding dealing with classified information (in which case they have shown gross incompetence in their jobs/duties) or they do understand this distinction and they are deliberately pretending not to because it is the only cover left for them to try and defend the indefensible of outing a NOC for partisan payback against her spouse for daring to challenge this WH on the nuclear case against Iraq.
This is something that needs to be clamped down on, and hard. This, along with the no underlying crime meme are the two most powerful tools the GOP have to try and defend this fiasco at this time. It must be stripped away and shown for the mockery and farce of reasoning that it truly is.
Adie @ 162
And one of those moments that the wingnuts pointedly select to miss.
Hell, even Toensing’s little groupies ET noted in Freeperville didn’t make a point of mobbing Miss Vicky, did they? Where were all the members of her fan club? Did the cameras go all blinkety-blink when she came in and left, too? No?
Rayne @ 165
I don’t think I noticed that, but when she passed by a mirror, I didn’t see any reflection…
Adie @ 166
Probably wouldn’t see her breath, either, if you could stand to get that close to her with a mirror.
Can’t think of soul who’d want to risk seven years bad luck for proof of life…
A couple of things trouble me about the Waxman Hearings. The trouble is not the hearings so much as what comes next. The first thing that bothers me is that the hearings received very little coverage outside of C-Span. Maybe that was due to the Gonzales problems but it is a bit mysterious why KO didn’t have an expert on discussing the lack of White House investigation of security lapses, for example. Maybe KO is saving that stuff for Monday in hopes that it will be the start of a news cycle when people pay attention. I dunno, it just disturbs me. It seems like the press would like for this incident to just go away because it’s just too embarrassing. I wish they’d get over it already. This is too important.
The second thing that bugs me is that when Waxman sent his letter demanding an explanation from Bolten, he didn’t put a date in it that indicates when he expected an answer. That leaves it a bit open-ended for Bolten to just ignore it until prompted again for a response. It could go on indefinitely. How long does Waxman intend to wait for an answer? And has he even scheduled a followup to his hearing to keep the momentum going?
Am I stressing too much? Gonzo is important but not MORE important. Plus, the more pressure on Rove, the better.
surfsup post 159 at March 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“1. When Robert Novak called the CIA to confirm that Plame worked there, why didn’t they do more to dissuade him from publiching the info? All the reports I’ve read on this indicate the CIA
was pretty milquetoast in that regard.”
This is another one of those things the GOP has gone out of their way to muddy. The CIA did all it could, if they had said to Novak that if you print her name you are exposing an uncover officer then the CIA has just outed their own NOC, and violated the law. When a CIA officer tells you to not use the name of someone because it will hurt national security anyone with any experience with intelligence issues and the CIA (and Novak has that history so he has no basis to claim ignorance on this) will know that this is serious and that it almost certainly means someone is undercover. That to be told to not print someone’s name for those grounds is as strong as they can go without breaking the law and exposing her as covert. This is something I find infuriating I might add, since it is clearly nonsense to claim the CIA did not do enough, that they should have said she was undercover when clearly the CIA is prohibited by law from ever doing that especially where a media request for info is concerned!!!
Isn’t Tenet’s book to be published shortly…
Why not subpoena dunk slam?
Why doesn’t Fitzy issue a report to Congress
(not required but could he?)
Any status update on the Wilson civil suit?
Jack
emptywheel @ 141
Thanks for the info!
I guess I am way off topic hear so ignore this if you want, except the hearing said we do not know where this information first got to the WH (maybe you could do a post on what we do know?):
Armitage’s argument for not thinking she was covert was that name’s of covert agent’s are not normally included in such memo’s? That this was not a CIA memo makes that more credible. Still didn’t Armitage report to Novack that she was covert? Also he reported that she suggested her husband go to niger (incorrectly according to valerie’s recent testimony). Or is Novak lying about what Armitage told him?
BTW isn’t Armitage a Neocon, he signed one of their statements, so he may not be the innocent assistant to Powell, that at least Novack claimed?
portia.vz @ 168
Keep in mind that by the time the nighttime shows were on, several of the networks were already on Abu Gonzales resignation-watch.
I set up a page which includes the third panel transcript…in case people need it.
Link.
Panel 2 is here…in case you missed it
Rayne@ 127
Excellent point. But it seems to me there should have been an official statement of her status years ago that would have served to shut up conservative media saying she wasn’t covert. Guess that was part of the WH coverup and spin.
fyi – the hearing is on cspan now.
Scotian @ 169
I suspect that Novak took that warning as confirmation of her status and was reassured by one od his SAOs that he himself was in no danger of coming under to jurisdiction of the IIPA. Rather than discouraging him, he might have been emboldened.
What I want to know is whether George Tenet resigned or was fired. I suspect that he resigned after he heard about the machinations with the declassification of Plame’s name by Cheney via Bush’s authorization to the VP to declassify. I’ll bet he was pretty pissed.
Dreamcatcher @ 36.
The origin of the IIPA law is an absolutely fascinating topic — and while this many be long, I’ll offer it up.
The idea for the law emerged in late 1975, early 1976 at the time that William Colby was being removed from CIA after he had clearly answered questions at the Church and Pike Committee hearings — as they put it, he handed over the family Jewels. Ford had decided to replace Colby with GHWBush, the announcement had been made, and Bush was on home leave from his posting in China getting ready for his Senate Confirmation hearings. What Ford wanted to do was put an end to the elaboration of hearings such as Church and Pike.
So in late December, 1975, our CIA Station Chief in Athens Greece was assassinated in front of his villa near Athens. Richard Welch was career CIA, and had only recently arrived in Greece. However perhaps 6 weeks prior to this assassination, Welch had been identified in a British Publication — a tabloid sort of thing with mixed anarchist-leftist politics.
After the murder, Ford made GHWBush responsible for the formal honors for Welch, and thus Bush met the plane with the remains at Andrews, along with the honorary pall bearers including Dick Cheney, Ford’s chief of staff, Rumsfeld, then Sec. of DOD, and Sec of State Henry Kissinger. The remains were taken to Arlington, a memorial service conducted there, and Welch was laid to rest with very very high honors. This was Xmas week, 1975.
To the press, and in his confirmation hearing, Bush made the claim that Phillip Agee was probably responsible for pushing Welch’s identity to the British Publication — and he pressed the case for a specific law that would make revealing the identity of a covert agent illegal. During the 11 months he served as head of CIA he continued to press for this, but by the time he left office after Carter’s election, nothing had emerged from committee. In the meantime, Agee was living in Cuba and claimed he had nothing to do with the revelation.
Carter made Stansfield Turner head of CIA, and he spent his 4 years making many major reforms at CIA — among other things, closing down many covert opps that produced no useful intelligence. He retired at least 800 agents, some still left overs from WWII era, and he greatly enhanced training, and hired many younger officers with technical skill sets. Among long serving officers, many of these reforms were not popular.
OK — in 1981 GHWBush becomes VP, and he immediately begins to push the IIPA in Congress. In the debate both in committee and later on the floor the key issue was how to protect Journalists from being indicted if they spilled beans without intending to spill secret beans. The contribution of Toesing to the bill is mostly in this area, and her role was to negotiate the details with Senators. Bill passed in 1982. There has been apparently one conviction under it — that conviction a product of a plea bargin. We have no actual case law that would indicate it is a workable or useful law if the intent is to protect covert officers. I have always believed IIPA was much more directed at Seymour Hersh than at Agee — afterall it was Hersh whose December 1974 monster article in the NYTimes set off the Church and Pike hearings, and I suspect all along the intent to close those down, and avoid them in the future was the real object of this lawmaking.
OK — nothing much more of interest happens until November, 1989 — when the Berlin Wall came down, and over the next weeks and months CIA and other western intelligence agencies got access to Stasi Files. Millions of them. They also sent CIA officers into formerly denied E. Europe to buy out agents with the intent of comprehending all the details of the past 40 years of spooks games. Over time many of these Stasi Files became available to West German Journalists — particularly investigative teams at Der Spiegel. Eventually they ran across details of the Welch Murder, and it was quite different from what Bush had assumed.
It seems that Welch, who had previously been posted in Peru, had been ID’ed as CIA by the Stasi, and in turn they had passed that to other Soviet Block services. He was identified because he attempted to recruit the Stasi Officer in Peru to work for CIA. So Stasi decided to play it back on CIA — and it twas the Stasi that planted the article in the British Publication. It was the Anarchist group, November 17, that carried out the murder in 1975. Stasi files show they had not intended a “wet job” — their intent was just to out Welch in Greek Circles. Anyhow, in the early 1990’s, Der Spiegel published this story complete with copies of Stasi files. They did this with a large number of “cold” Cold War cases. It never made it into the US Press. In otherwords, Agee had nothing at all to do with it.
In the 90’s there was lots of conflict between the BnD — the German Version of CIA and the CIA, over the materials CIA had gathered in those wild days after the wall came down that they had not properly shared. (much of it about W. German and W. European Politicians who had dealings with Stasi.) Eventually the Clinton Administration gave them DVD’s of all the files they had collected (maybe all is not quite accurate, but that’s the claim) and the issue was back burnered.
OK — fast forward to 2001, and the selection of GWBush as President. Barbara Bush published a book about her son a few months after he became president, in which she repeated the claim that Phillip Agee had been responsible for the murder of Richard Welch, and Barbara claimed that her son would never let anything like this happen under his watch.
Well, up jumps Phillip Agee from his Cuban home, he hired a NY Lawyer and sued Barbara Bush for libel. Evidence — all the stuff that had been published internationally — the Der Spiegel materials, much of which got translated and published in the French and British Press. Barbara settled out of court, she paid up, and promised in any subsequent edition of her book, the Agee story would be eliminated.
You see, Welch was ID’ed as CIA because he tried to pitch a Stasi officer while in Peru, and Stasi decided to play back at him, and it got out of control, as Stasi did not control the Greek Anarchists. And that, it seems, is the origin of the IIPA law in the US.
So what should be done — how about beginning with the truth, and then revoking the 1982 IIPA law (which is more a roadmap for how to use Journalists to leak without consequences), and then carefully examine with experienced prosecutors whether the 1917 Espionage Law, as revised, covers the necessary protection of Intelligence Officers, and if not, propose amendments that cover that clearly. At the same time, Waxman needs to thoroughly review processes regarding classification and declassification.
For serious study of all this stuff — I really recommend the work of John Prados, who works with the National Security Archive at GW University, and has published about 14 books on various aspects of National Security. The funeral for Welch is in his bio of Colby — on the Iraq war and the Press, strong recommendation for Hoodwinked, and just a few months ago he brought out a comprehensive review, Safe for Democracy, The Secret Wars of the CIA — (Ivan R. Dee) — just excellent particularly for someone very interested, but not a long time follower of the topic.
Adie @ 159
Wow, I haven’t had to go that far. I always check the knives & adjusting tools in checked baggage, of course. I carry the instruments onboard of course, but I have a plan of action so I generally don’t get a headache.
First, I smile a lot and am very cheery to the security personnel. I send my purse/etc. through the scanners first, then the instruments go last. I tell the security people that musical instrument(s) are in the bag, not a laptop. I wait until the instruments enter the scanning machine before I step through the body scanner. After I go through, I turn to the guy with the xray on my instruments and say something like “you win a prize if you can guess what musical instrument that is!” That usually gets them pretty jovial, and 9/10 times I get the “clarinet” as an answer. Once I actually got the correct instrument guessed by a former oboist… and she jokingly said I had to play a song before I could proceed.
I’ve never had any hassle since I started doing this, and I fly with one or more instruments at least a dozen times a year.
Oh, it doesn’t hurt to carry the AFM letter to the TSA stating that the TSA has agreed to allow musicians to carry on an instrument and not have it counted as a carryon item. I usually have that in my gig bag, too, but I’ve never had to use it.
Maybe these tips will help him in the future. Now, I just wish there were a way for us to fly without being required to check the reedtools. There are times when the only reason I check a bag is because of those items – I can’t travel without ‘em!
For newbies who are not full-on Plame-maniacs like so many of us here at FDL, you may want to read two of Emptywheel’s earlier “primers” on the subject:
Anatomy of the WH’s Smear Defense
Anatomy of a White House Smear, Redux
And then buy her book (linked on this site, upper left).
I bought myself two copies – one with the author’s signature (thanks!), and one already laden with tape flags, sticky notes and highlighter. There’s some serious entertainment value in that tiny tome.
Scotian @ 169
Got it–Catch-22–can’t say too much, can’t say too little. Still, isn’t there a better way?
Thanks surfsup@158:
As for 2. If Plame was covert, why was her desk job in a known CIA facility? Shouldn’t Brewster Jennings have had a DC office she could have worked out of?
As to your second question, Plame stated during the hearing that she and other officers are trained to make sure that they are not followed to work.
I missed that in the hearing. Still, it seems like pretty weak tradecraft. Couldn’t someone just sit by the entrances to CIA facilities & see who comes & goes? Wouldn’t a front office for coverts be more secure?
surfsup @ 7
Hey, Mike, nice letter to Broder and good to see you here. Enjoyed poll-standing for Lamont with you in Darien last November. Whatever else can be said about Lieberman, we can take some personal comfort in knowing he’s not our fault.
eCAHNomics @ 180
Why don’t you try doing that for yourself, see how long it takes for you to see someone and recognize them as NOC?
Nobody in the business is going to spell out the tradecraft going on here for you.
Brel1 @ 174
Oh no, they couldn’t do that. They could not shoot down one of their only opportunities for wiggle room. What would Toensing do if they had closed that loop?
More importantly, if the CIA and the USDOJ came out and made a conclusive statement to the public in late 2003 that someone in the administration had breached national security and exposed both an agent under deepest cover and an entire front company, would George Bush have been reelected?
surfsup @ 158
I tend to disagree with both sides on this point. On the one hand, it doesn’t seem like a great idea in this day and age for our covert agents to be driving to and from Langley. On the other hand, I think the right-wing talking point that anyone could have photographed her driving into CIA headquarters is somewhat laughable. I challenge any right-winger to drive up to the entrance of CIA headquarters, get out of the car, and start taking pictures of everyone going in. The end result will probably not qualify as one of your better days.
Scotian @ 163
First, Scotian, it wasn’t me you were quoting. I merely replied. Just wanted to clear my name. :)
Davis twice asked one of the guys on the second panel (name escapes me) a question that prompted him to begin to answer along the lines quoted above (that regardless, anyone with a security clearance in bound to check to see whether that person is covert before they say or even confirm the name to anyone else). Davis cut him off both times. It was obvious he knew where the guy was going and didn’t want it in the record. I was hoping that one of the Dems would pick up on it later to get it into the record. They sort of did with Toensing, but I was hoping for more.
Davis sure came off like a prick, IMHO.
Hey, Ralphbon @ 180! It was a pleasure working with you that cold, rainy day. Nice to see you here as well! I sleep slightly better knowing that we did what we could. I bet there are a lot of people in CT wishing that we could have done more (or that they did do more).
oh boy. after arriving home from a leisurely lunch with ‘partner’ and ‘friends’ (s. indian vegetarian by the way) I find fascinating posts at FDL.
well, time to read while wondering if I’ll see the word twaitor in the awticles.
Larry @ 171
Armitage did not tell Novak she was covert. Novak has said Armitage said she was in CPD, but Armitage disputes that–and he told Woodward she was an analyst (based on teh same source of info) which seems to support Armitage on this.
Armitage was a PNAC signer. But at the time he talked to Woodward and Novak, his primary concern was winning on this issue over Hadley and OVP. His transcript with Woodward makes it clear that State and CIA are clean on the Niger stuff, in such a way that suggests (consistent with all the known evidence) that Armitage saw himself as defending the interests of State and CIA in bureaucratic fights with the warmongers.
Adie @ 148
IIRC, Waxman DID remind Toensing that she was asked to give her expert opinion on the executive order, not the IIPA. It was clear that she was there for the GOP to get their meme out and reinforce it. She really did a pathetic job of it. Even the most virulent winger has to be cringing at her performance even if they continue to vomit her words. I’ll bet they wish they had a better spokesman. But no one can thoughtlessly rattle off the “she was not covert” line better than Toensing. Unfortunately for her, thought was required last Friday.
Sara @ #177 – !!!!!
I did not know Agee beat Babs in a civil suit. I’m sure I would have remembered it had I known…
Sara @ 177 – wow, many thanks for this history lesson. i had no idea.
portia.vz 168
This stuff is incredibly complicated, especially when a victoria-tive deliberately tries to confound & confuse, with every ounce of bluff & bluster she can muster for the occasion and the cameras.
I know I don’t have to tell you that. But it’s not only distressing, but quite true, I fear, that the MSM is still [pretending to be] confused not only by details, but – unbelievably – by why they should even bother to cover these issues at all.
The repubWurlitzer has been fully cranked to spin mode, doing everything in their power to convince folks there’s nothing to see, nothing that matters, involved in all this. Even the gushing sympathy wasted on Irving helps make people turn attn elsewhere.
Up till now, it’s been FDL, a few other blogs, and Schuster. Disgusting but true.
It’s just gonna take s’more hammering to force the MSM to show where the Plame threads lead: ADMIN. LIES, NO W*D, ENDLESSWAR for PRIVATEPROFITEERS, DEADSOLDIERS, WHYTEHOWCE COVERUP, HORRIBLY INJURED PEOPLE, SUBSTANDARD CARE FOR INJURED, GREED&LIES LIES LIES.
Rinse & repeat. Again. Again.
NBC keeps trumpeting that it’s gonna have a Monday extravaganza tomorrow – all day about the road TO war! If they DARE do that without mentioning all the lies and [please to insert above paragraph] – IF THEY DARE?!? well, a good-old-fashioned tar-&-feather-pestering session might be in order, ahem. eh?
After all the hard work and commitment by Marcy and everyone else, let’s not give up now! ;->
Yes, it was an out of court settlement, money changed hands, and it was reported in the NYTimes. Of interest, the settlement occurred before the outing of Valerie Wilson, and my guess is that Georgie knew that his mom had not done too well in court.
emptywheel @ 187
Have you been able to check on when Armitage and Woodward first met. I was told they met back when Woodward served directly under Admiral Thomas Morer – in late 1969 or early 1970. Woodward and Armitage were both ONI-connected at the time.
EPU’d from last night’s Bedtime Story thread, but never answered:
Or, as some have suggested, was it not about Joe, but more about Valerie?
Marcy?
Getting Sibel Edmunds to appear would be a good next step as well.
More info here
LandofTheFree at 178
Sweet of you to answer! No, he hasn’t had hardly any trouble. As you said, it’s mostly the strain of wondering when the day comes that the checked stuff goes astray. As you say, you just have to have them right up to and including on stage.
He had a friend who did indeed have to play for screeners once. And it’s so easy for the instrument to be put out of adjustment, he just trusts things better if he’s the one to fuss with it. I like the idea of having the union letter handy. I’ll pass that idea along, ’cause I don’t know if he does that.
Keep makin’ that beautiful music! ;->
Sara @ 177: UTTERLY FASCINATING.
mauimom @
194
The research into Joe began mid-May and accelerated after June 9, when Bush expressed an interest (based, however, on Condi’s Sunday show appearance).
The target was almost certainly both of htem, but primarily Joe. They also went after his previous trips and tried to smear him in big ways, which had nothing to do with Valerie.
surfsup @ 185
Ah, my mistake, I am sorry. I was trying to avoid putting too many boxes in boxes like I have seen warnings about, so I only quote once from an original, if there are multiples I tend to take out what I want to address and label it to the post in question. That is how that mistake occurred.
As to the rest of your comment, why does that not surprise me in the slightest? One of the things I used to hammer the Trolletariat with over at Political Animal on this issue was the clear failure to provide affirmative protection of classified information by these various WH people. Regardless of whether they knew she was covert they knew she was CIA which placed upon them the AFFIRMATIVE responsibility/obligation by the oaths they signed to verify the status of the employee to make sure that one doesn’t “accidentally” out a covert asset before breathing a letter (let alone word) about her and any CIA connection to anyone be it actively or as simple confirmation.
That is serious wrongdoing and abuse of security clearances right there, and the fact that there has never to this day been any investigation into this both before a criminal investigation started and after the end of the Libby trial underscores the awareness within the WH as to what the results of such an investigation would be. Namely the stripping of all clearances from all involved parties, and that would be something that would require all those people to leave their positions and that would not be able to be covered up as some sort of “routine” shuffling. This has always been an intelligence issue first for me not a political one, the political aspects come into it because of the players involved.
You may not believe this, few do, but the day I read the Novak article I was left in a greater state of shock than watching the horrors of 9/11/01 that day. I always knew sooner or later the US was going to get hit domestically by terrorism, particularly bin Laden as he was making no secret of his campaign against America for years prior, whereas I never EVER expected to see a NOC betrayed by the top levels of her own government. Especially not for what appeared to be political damage control because of what her husband (not a NOC/CIA) told a reporter (since this all started well before Wilson’s op-ed) that contradicted the nuclear argument and the infamous 16 words of the 2003 SOTU speech. That truly did shock me, even coming from Bushco and what I had by that point already seen them doing to twist and politicize intelligence. That is why this matters so much to me despite being Canadian, not to mention that nuclear proliferation threatens all of us in the western world and not just America.
Adie @ 145
“reclaiming my time” wasn’t Holmes Norton (non-voting, DeeCee). It was Diane Watson, California.
Has anyone seen an article anywhere on what all the missing Republicans from Waxman’s committee were actually doing on Friday during the proceedings?
ralphbon @ 181
OT for this board, but thanx for doing more than me (and a lot of others I’m sure) to try to get Lamont elected. For the peeps who keep knocking CT becuz of LIEberman, Holy Joe only got 50% of the vote… that means 50% were against him (40% for Lamont, 10% for Shleshinger)… so please, stop generalizing CT in that light… I’m still flogging myself for not doing more to help Ned, I don’t need to read how CT sux on a regular basis on all the prog boards.
portia.vz 188
Sorry, our msgs crossed paths, oops! *g*
I couldn’t agree more. I do think she was on a mission. I think she bombed. And I think everyone thinks so. Aaannnd, it just absolutely cracked me up when Waxman held the record open, just for her. Lah dee dah – lucky lucky vICKY! He just couldn’t resist, bless his heart. He’s just one dandy fella! ;->
emptywheel @ 198 :
The target was almost certainly both of them, but primarily Joe. They also went after his previous trips and tried to smear him in big ways, which had nothing to do with Valerie.
Thanks very much!! [My head has finally stopped spinning, and I can go back to watching basketball. And drying my tears over both kids’ return to college today.]
Well emptywheel and comment’ers’ that was great reading. thank you. on to the rest.let’s hope MSM sits up and takes notice.
Hey maybe if they knew a blonde white woman had suffered a mishap?????????????????
TeddySanFran @ 200
“Reclaiming my time” is pretty damn effective. ‘ll bet it goes down in history like “expletive deleted”. It firmly but not rudely ends the filibuster. I’d like to see someone use that against Condi.
Bobonze @ 202:
Has there been ANY polling since the election re how CT residents feel about Holy Joe NOW? I’m just curious [not accusatory].
FWIW, to me, the Knodell pummeling (hmm…sounds vaguely like a Robert Ludlum novel) was, to anyone paying attention, the closest thing this scandal has yet had to an Alexander Butterfield moment.
Just as Butterfield revealed the presence of the Watergate smoking gun, ie, the White House taping system, Knodell’s confirmation of the utter lack of curiosity, much less an actual internal investigation, constituted the damning Gun That Didn’t Smoke.
My favorite moment was when Knodell was asked to respond to the last tough question and, clearly punch-drunk, he just shook his head and said, “I’m good.”
TeddySanFran @ 200
THANK YOU! I was scrambling around trying to find my notes on that, & couldn’t. Darn me.
I stand corrected, happily so! ;->
Rep. Diane Watson – she was absolutely dynomite. Just LOVED her questions, and even her intro. Settled lil’ miss vICKY’s hash, she did. WaaaHooo! There was cheering here!
Addendum to 209
Oh dear, I am really sorry now, at my mixup. Now I remember – Holmes Norton sounded utterly confused and unprepared, very much in contrast to Rep. Watson’s total command.
Really sincere apologies!
mauimom, as the mom of an 8 year old, I think I’ll be crying, too when he goes off to college…tears of joy!! Is it quiet now? Do you hear the echoes of “Mom!! Mom!! Where’s my (younameithe’slostit)?? Mo-ooooom! WHERE IS MY NIHLI?? Oh, never mind, here it is.”
Sigh. I love my Sprout.
Mommybrain @ 211
best advice we ever received: parenting never gets harder or easier as they grow. it just gets different…
;->
FYI — there are at least three known entrances to CIA HQ in Langley (McLean) Virginia. Stopping at any of them will earn you an immediate visit from unhappy armed security folks. Even so, I wouldn’t put it past the cheeto-eaters to try, and sometimes I wish they would!
mauimom @ 207
Good Question!… I’m gonna look for that here I think if anywhere, this would be a good source… I could tell you from personal experience, I knew some peeps who voted for JL in the Primary, then went with NL in the general. Unfortunately, I don’t keep up with the local politics as much as I’d like
Marcy has any congresscritter or committee actually contacted you to avail themselves of your wisdom on this matter?
From reading here at the Lake you seem to be the go to gal on this and an enormous resource to be tapped… only in the most polite way of course. After all you have published the best book on the topic to date… and that would make you an expert.
No?
DefJef @
215
Sometimes the mountain goes to Mohammed.
We can leave it at that, further clarification at the discretion of the mountain.
No one should be surprised by Mr. Knodell’s revelation that the WH did not conduct an investigation on the “leak” of a covert agent. The Bush Administration has always felt that they are above the law. A Republican dominated Congress would do nothing to challenge their Party’s leader.
Representatitive Westmoreland’s question on whether V. Plame was a Republican or a Democrat serves to demonstrate that for Republicans the Party is comes first. I only wish V. Plame would have had the presence of mind when she answered that question with “I’m an American first, and then a Democrat.”
Sara @ 177 says: [a whole shitload of well-researched background on IIPA…]
March 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
*applause*
Will take your reading suggestions. Thank you!
Sara – if you’re still around: Do you know more about the out-of-court settlement between Barbara Bush and Agee in this interesting back-story saga? I’m reading about that now at various sites. Looks like the libel suit was for $4 million and to have the book corrected. Looks like he got a letter of apology from Babs and the paperbook version of the book was corrected (when that first was, I don’t know), but nothing about any money in the settlement.
Also, Babs’ “Memoir” hardback book was published in 1994 (not 2001). Agee filed suit in 1995 (from what I see on abc and reuters reports). Was it settled that year? And are you saying that in 2001 she repeated it again in a book about W? I’m unclear….
This does all make for an intriguing bit of context – that the IIPA was commonly dubbed the “Anti-Agee-Act,” for instance.
One other issue… Rep. Davis characterized the leak as more of a CIA issue than a White House issue, yet what was the CIA supposed to do when the White House — with security clearance credentials — asked about Valerie Plame’s status? It most assuredly was not a CIA issue; it was a White House issue, and no amount of misdirection will alter that fact.
Emptywheel, that’s the best definitive summary I’ve seen! Thanks!
Waxman, by the way, has shown again how this stuff is done. I hope other Democrats are watching.
Ed*ard Teller @ 153
In and out of the thread. Trying to do laundry today too.
Thanks for the kind words
Sara says
March 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I meant to do this earlier, but let me add my hearty Thank! You! for this well written comment. Simply an excellent example of why I not only read the posts here but the comment threads as well, because as good as the original posts can be for information the comments can provide even more than the post itself thanks to the high calibre people that frequent/comment at FDL.
emptywheel @
138
I really enjoy hanging around Firedoglake with all the pups. I am delurking today because I believe there may be a connection between the Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings outing and the Sibel Edmonds case and I would like to hear what you guys think about it.
I read a diary by Lurkery at Daily Kos on Friday called *What the heck is Sibel Edmonds’ Case About? And Why Should I Care?*
This case is extremely important. Evidently Sibel can name names and put a lot of very important neocons in jail for a long time.
The thing that jumped out at me in the article was that Plame and Brewster Jennings had been conducting counter-intelligence operations into this matter for years.
So now I’m wondering if outing Valerie was a two-birds-with-one-stone sort of action. On one hand, it served to try and discredit Joe Wilson. On the other, it exposed Brewster Jennings as a cover company, thus blowing the network investigating the American Turkish Council and its involvement in heroin trafficking and illegal weapons trafficking (including nuclear technology and hardware.) A lot of very well known neocons are involved with ATC.
So what do you guys think? I could be wrong, but I can’t help but wonder…
eCAHNomics @ 33
re comment at 33 –The appointment of Fitzgerald as Attorney General of the United States takes him away from a very important task. To bring closure to the Bust-Cheney Empire’s Crime Family, thru all the legal mazes contructed to defeat it happening. I vote him an independent prosecutor for we, the people.
pachelbelle @ 224
maybe Brewster Jennings did their job too well.
eCAHNomics @
142
I think this would’ve been the perrfect time for one of those renditions they’re famous for!
Hearings on Sibel Edmonds claims would be a good next step.
More info here
mommybrain@211
The real crying begins when your pup comes back to live with you AFTER he graduates from college. Mine’s 25 & shows no signs of leaving. (In his defense, it’s hard to move away from midtown Manhattan, which he can’t afford on his own income.) Within the last few years, an Italian man won a lawsuit against his parents who tried to shove him out the door when he was in his 30s.
Bobonze @ 202
Bobonze — Sorry, but I can’t cotton to your rant. I’ve seen no one claim literally that CT as whole sucks…just a majority of its voting electorate this November.
You’ve certainly seen no such diatribe here; if CT sucked, Jane wouldn’t be moving there.
The 2001 publication was much more a revision of her earlier work, and not a new edition. The point in 2001 was to celebrate her now Presidential Son, something not in the earlier book. The settlement eventually reached with Agee’s lawyers was sealed, though the Times did get some information, including the fact that money changed hands. I would imagine Agee at least got full attorney fees and court costs, but he may have gotten considerably more.
My reason for focusing a bit on this is that I am certain that within the dynamics of the Bush family, the fact that Agee sued Barbara Bush was an issue — a subject of much discussion, and that Junior George would have known about it. Whether he made the connection or not — he would have had that information when the outing of Plame-Wilson occured. He knew, or should have known about the IIPA law — that’s my point, Mummy had been sued and had to pay up.
It’s the Stasi stuff that I find most interesting, because it is not a cover story at all — it is what happens when walls come down and some truth telling begins. Agee was always a false cover story designed to churn stuff up for a political end — the IIPA law. But the Stasi saga tells us much more about the truth of how intelligence works, and sometimes fails. In this case it appears that Stasi planted the information in the British publication in hopes it would be picked up in Greece and neuter the CIA Station Chief, a return elbow bump for the bump the CIA offered when it attempted to recruit the Stasi Officer in Peru. These were typical spook games during the cold war — there were lots of them.
But it went out of control when they depended on a gang of Greek Anarchists to be the Stasi Proxy. Someone got murdered, when the goal was simply to neuter him. The problem with Proxy actors is that they are not easy to control, or as some put it, you can buy them but they don’t stay bought. We have many examples in our own CIA history of this — but here is one right out of the Stasi history. It is, I think, a universal problem with using any proxy that does not completely share agenda. When we hear administration folk suggesting proxy support for US objectives we ought to see fireworks and red flags waving. At most it is a short term tactic.
By the way, the November 17th gang was caught in the run up to the Athens Olympics, and I believe one or several of them got convicted for the Welch Murder among many other violent acts.
pachelbelle @ 224
that Sibel post, *What the heck is Sibel Edmonds’ Case About? And Why Should I Care?*, is here.
I’d like to see Seymour Hersh take a shot at the Plame outing – something long, with lots of CIA sources, about how she fought the WH for years over Iraq WMDs would be really great.
mauimom @ 194
I’m not Marcy, but my co-blogger MEC over at MercRising has made a very similar point.
MEC also zeroes in on the part of the hearing where it is settled, once and for fricking ALL, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Valerie Plame was a covert operative.
sara@231 says
My reason for focusing a bit on this is that I am certain that within the dynamics of the Bush family, the fact that Agee sued Barbara Bush was an issue — a subject of much discussion, and that Junior George would have known about it. Whether he made the connection or not — he would have had that information when the outing of Plame-Wilson occured. He knew, or should have known about the IIPA law — that’s my point, Mummy had been sued and had to pay up.
I would have thought that, within the dynamics of the Bush family, this all would have come up in a shouting match (Babs just strikes me as a screamer somehow) after dinner and that W would have already been drunk. Therefore, more likely he had no clue about this any more than he has clues about anything else.
eCAHNomics @ 236
Except this was during his dry period isn’t it? I do agree with you that it seems unlikely given everything we know about the internal workings/dynamics of the Bush family that this would not have been a big deal and she would have been privately snarking about it to her immediate family. So the idea that GWB would not have been aware of the IIPA does seem unlikely when viewed through that consideration/lens. The only question I would have is how much he retained it let alone considered it for this operation, especially since I don’t think it started with him or Rove but Cheney instead with Bush/Rove coming in once he initiated it. Still though it is something worth considering when viewing what it is reasonable for GWB to have known from his actual exposure to it (as opposed to what his responsibilities dictate he should know about, we already know he has never successfully measured up to that standard in either private nor public life). Thanks for bring it up.
Scotian @ 236
According to sources, there has never been a dry period. Anyhow, I was just snarking. You’re point is very well taken. Also love the part about Babs having to pay up. I have a good friend in Houston who relates stories to me about Bush intimidation tactics, so to know that at least once it’s worked the other way around warms the cockles of my heart.
Sara — I love your account, but some of your dates are off. Philip Agee’s lawsuit was in 1995, in response to offending passages in Barbara Bush’s Memoir, published in 1994.
There’s an account online here: Phil Agee sues Barbara Bush.
sara 177 – THANK YOU!!!
Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but perusing the right wing blogs finds that pretty much not one person was persuaded about this case by the hearings. They all scream that Ms. Plame committed perjury and that Dear Vickie made mincemeat of Waxman. I believe someone referenced her ‘towering intellect’.
So, be happy that Valerie had her day to speak for herself, but don’t believe that it made even one convert.
Sad.
fantastic summary. thanks so much!
surfsup @
7
I think the column you are responding to his from 7 Sep 06, not today’s.
surfsup @ 158
And as to the first question…how could that have been done without CONFIRMING to Novak (which is a) a violation of the law and b) specifically what NOVAK wanted) that she was employed at the CIA and her position was classified.
The CIA wasn’t allowed to confirm her association unless it had been declassified or she was working in an unclassified post. Plame was COVERT.
The CIA stated that they didn’t want him to reveal any information about possible links between Plame and the CIA…that it might endanger her if she travelled abroad (that would be true whether or not she were a CIA operative). That was as far as they could go to dissuade him…a non-confirmation and a strong suggestion that saying anyone is a CIA operative can be deadly to them or their family members. Just look what happened to Daniel Pearl!
Novak should have had better sense to do this unless the CIA said it WAS ALRIGHT TO DO SO!
And I hope that you don’t think that the “affirmative measures” the Agency was required to undertake was to attempt to kill or “forced rendition” Novak? That would have stopped him…but the CIA isn’t allowed to undertake operations within the United States ;-) But it might’ve brought home to the right-wing exactly what we are doing to people in places like Italy.
ralphbon @ 208
yes agreed! i cetainly found knodell’s time UNDER OATH as interesting as toensing’s! on friday someone described it as he was sent to fall on his owns sword by the wh. but he was so unsophisticated, all he did was raise more suspicion for the wh, his predecessor & himself.
seemed like his last job was working at club as a bouncer
Bay State Librul @ 170
Yes! And if Plame is being allowed by Hayden to say that she was Covert and travelled abroad within the five year window required by the law…
…I wonder if Tenet’s book will detail all the activities that the WH undertook to block the release of this information to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees during their investigation of the WMD misrepresentations.
Here’s what I think about the timing issue. Tenet lobbied hard to get permission to discuss these issues in his book. Hayden declassified them as a result. Tenet had his book all ready for release…then realised that the Libby trial would be over and Val would be called before Waxman’s Committee.
He rang up Valerie and said “Look, we haven’t been able to protect you very well. But I was just told by Hayden that he declassified this material for my book. Go to him and insist that you should be allowed to discuss your status in general terms when under oath and subpoena before Waxman. After all, it’s declassified.”
That’s my guess why it took so long to get Hayden (and before that the putz Bush Crony Porter Goss) to allow her to talk even in the most general terms. But they weren’t going to fight Tenet…who perhaps not only threatened to reveal this aspect in his book, classification be damned, but also EVEN MORE, if they didn’t allow this much to be Declassified.
But DO expect Tenet to reveal some real BOMBS! I think Tenet’s more of a Colin Powell type…overly loyal. But there’s only a certain amount that he can take.
Roger @ 240
i certainly am not dedicated to learning & despensing information about the plame/wilson situation so that the right can be presuaded to change their minds. i’m passionate about this case, (& all its tenticles), because its the best opportunity we americans have, (due to the wilson’s brave committment to truth & their patriotism), to get the bush administration to take responsibility for their crimes of distorting our constitution & laws, & possibly be proscecuted & punished for it.
but then, that was before last friday’s doc dump.:)
Was it just me, or did things suddenly become very quiet when the words “dereliction of duty” were used in connection with Dr. Knodell’s handling of the leak? Isn’t that one of those firing offenses?
The evil of the 9/11 attacks pales in comparison to the evil inflicted on our great nation by Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Feith, Addington, Libby, Ashcroft, and all the other Republican thieves, liars and hypocrits.
ralphbon @
230
Is Kobe registered yet?
lukery @
232
Lurkery,
Do you see the possible connection I see?
Eureka Springs, AR @ 103
_____________________________________________
Amen, this is a very real concern of mine; from Dubya on down to the lowliest of the 29%-ers, there could be major, major panic and despair. I try not to be so paranoid to fear that Bush will, as some have speculated, really flip and do the unimaginable regarding Iran, North Korea or, or, or…… with his finger(s) on the button(s)when he’s truly backed into a corner and sees no way out beyond escaping to Paraguay, whatever or
wherever, should the generals refuse his orders for the fantasized doomsday end some of the evangelicals long for.
Part of my concern is the potential paroxysms
of despair of the leadership and membership of the evangelical churches who for years have certainly prostituted themselves in mindless lock-step followership, having lost any capacity to understand the gospel or what discipleship means (a la Bonhoeffer), much less live it. What paths will become avail-able to restore what I would call theological integrity in the churches? How will the Jim Wallises of the liberal church have to say or do in the midst of those potential cataclsyms (sp?). Or the organizations represented by the folks in this weekend’s peace marches across the country.
Decades ago, while studying the development, evolution and empowerment of social and political movements, I never got around to looking at what happens when they begin to disintegrate. On the one hand, we might look at the devolution of the pParty these years after the 1994 Republican “revolution” led by one of the ultimate hypocrites, as we have recently learned.
Someone speculated this weekend that should Pelosi get to be president by default, she would choose to keep our troops in Iraq and
attack Iran. I asked what that speculation was based upon and I’ve no idea if anyone responded. But later I remembered Pareto’s theory of the Circulation of the Elites,
which might hypothesize such a response.
So where is righteousness – whatever I or anyone else might mean by that ambiguous term? Will it forever be elusive, just out of reach? And so how then shall we live with integrity in the midst of insanity, however we might define it. If the Madness, Madness, Madness that Fitz alluded to should, by the grace of God be resolved, will there be another form to keep the struggle forever before us. Perhaps history’s judgement is, yes, thus has it always been, thus it is even now, thus it shall always be.
May there be grace, may there be justice, may there be peace.
And in the meantime, I thank God for FDL.
portia.vz @
188
I wanted to hear the testimony again, but they just showed Valerie. I looked thru the transcript. It does have this:
At the start (for Toensing)
Since you also invited Valerie Plame here, I had to assume you also wanted to consider the protection of covert agents as specified under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the act that was the basis for the special counsel’s investigation.
Not until near the end:
REP. WATSON: Okay. Your testimony is focusing on the criminal prohibition in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But I don’t see any mention whatsoever of the administrative restrictions contained in Executive Order 12,958, which is what the invitation letter asks you to address.
but this is after most of the transcript is over, ie after they failed to challenge her on covert under the identies act at least very effectively, which it seems they took testimony from valerie and others on, so it appeared more like a fall back position then their only concern.
Of course for those who have been following this and know Toensing , you may have discounted her testimony, and rightly so, but for others who don’t know the cast of charcters etc. the Dems could have done a better job,IMHO, in this part of the hearing.
The transcipts don’t show a Norton is that a first name?
cinnamonape says
March 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I see we had the same reaction to the same comment. This act of trying to blame the CIA for Plame’s betrayal has been particularly odious, as has been the absolute lack of any investigation and sanctions for the clearly improper handling of classified information throughout the top level of the Bush Administration. I noted all that here: Scotian March 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pm. Novak had the background to fully understand the warn off he was given in the context it represented and he ignored it. Period. He knowingly decided his duty to his conservative friends/sources was more important than his duty to his country’s national security and he published Plame’s CIA identity. He even made it clear by calling her a CIA operative, a combination he uses precisely to mean exactly that in his past, while it is true he uses the term political operative and operative freely and interchangeably it is not so when he says CIA operative. Ironically enough it was because of reading Novak for decades and having some understanding of intelligence issues that I was already aware of this when I read the July 14 2003 article and why I was so outraged. So I was particularly incensed when he tried to pull that weasel dodge a bit after betraying Plame in the first place.
pachelbelle @ 250
it has certainly been regarded as a possibility for a long time that the attack on Plame was related to the ATC investigation (and BJ). Sorry for not responding to your original question, I tend not to try to pollute the FDL boards with my Sibel ranting…
A couple of days after that post that you mentioned, I wrote another called “Sibel Edmonds, Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings” which adds a bit more to that story. As it happens, BJ was outed (in the ATC confines) in June 2001 by Marc Grossman, and BJ stopped operating almost immediately.
my heroine of the day was congresswoman diane waters (d-ca). her calm, persistent, no-nonsense interrogation of toensing elicited from toensing the admission that plame was indeed covert – thus contradicting under oath toensing’s own widely spread assertions in the media.
more important, waters questioning made clear to observers that toensing’s claim that plame was not covert was based on a legal technicality – one that teonsing may or may not have fairly or accurately interpreted.
toensing’s facial expressions under water’s questioning were those of a child caught with hand in cookie jar.
i don’t understand why congresswoman waters has not been given more attention.
the only comment i’ve seen here is that waters was carefully guarding her time. that’s not what she was doing. she was cutting off toensing from giving long-winded, bullshit answers that would eat up time.
Kristine @
37
Wolf Blitzer is AIPAC’s man at CNN. Wolf is ever zealous of protecting the NeoCon strategy in the Middle-East.
Wolf subjected Congressman Murtha to his hatch-man tactics on CNN today without success. Wolf signed off the interview looking like a cheap suit.
Phoenix Woman @ 234
Here’s a quote at that link from Plame’s testimony:
“In February of 2002, a young junior officer who worked for me — came to me very upset. She had just received a telephone call on her desk from someone — I don’t know who — in the office of the vice-president asking about this report of this alleged sale of yellow cake uranium from Niger to Iraq.”
IMO sounds like a good place to start an investigation, just how often did the OVP or White House call Plame’s group at the CIA, and did Cheney ever see, meet, or otherwise learn about Plame, when he went out to the CIA to bully the analysts about Iraqi WMDs?
orionATL @
255
Just to clarify, were you referring to Rep. Diane E. Watson from CA-33?
You guys are so cool. Thanks, Marcy.
Thanks for the IIPA story Sara! That was fantastic … it is so odd that some of the characters are still touching this story 30 years later.
From the post:
Because really, even [Ms. Toensing] doesn’t have a good response to the deliberate outing of a CIA officer.
“Outing” implies awareness that she had classified status – can you review the trial evidence suggesting that Libby, Rove, Armitage, or Fleischer had such awareness?
Was it the testimony of Bob Grenier, Craig Schmall, or who?
It was pretty clear at the hearing yesterday that none of the Democrats on the panel could actually rebut Rep. Davis when he made that point, so your assistance on this would also help them in their next go-around as well.
Here, for example, was Davis in his opening statement:
I’m sure they would value your thoughts – where is the evidence that the “outing” was deliberate?
Valerie’s outing is being framed within the context of attempting to discredit Joe Wilson and silencing any potential whistle-blowers within the intelligence community. However, I believe the the real reason for the outing was to destroy the CIA’s ability to monitor and, when necessary, intercede in the development of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation. This is at the heart of the next step of the Project for the New American Century. – NorskeFlamethrower @ 125
Exactly the direction my thoughts have taken, though I need to read deeper into how this reflects the PNAC mission.
I also wonder about the networks that actually provide the materials and equipment to make and deploy WMDs … what companies are they hidden in … the “H” one? The “B” family of arms dealers? Somebody was getting blocked by Plame’s work, the money was not flowing, there will be no WMDs to find in countries that begin with I if the goods can’t get through …
The thing that jumped out at me in the article was that Plame and Brewster Jennings had been conducting counter-intelligence operations into this matter for years.
So now I’m wondering if outing Valerie was a two-birds-with-one-stone sort of action. On one hand, it served to try and discredit Joe Wilson. On the other, it exposed Brewster Jennings as a cover company, thus blowing the network investigating the American Turkish Council and its involvement in heroin trafficking and illegal weapons trafficking (including nuclear technology and hardware.) A lot of very well known neocons are involved with ATC. – pachelbelle @ 224
Whoo-hah! Hadn’t known about the ATC! Yeeow!
Also thanks to PhoenixWoman @234, who links us to Mercury Rising, with more links to Jane Hamsher’s and Larisa Alexandrovna’s articles from the past couple years on the same topic.
Also from the post:
But there were three, in particular, that stick out in my mind: the claim the INR memo “proved” Valerie sent or suggested Joe, the claim that Grenier told Libby about “Valerie Plame,” and the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger. The public record doesn’t support any of those assertions–yet Toensing offered those as “facts” “she knew.” It doesn’t reflect well, on Toensing, that in the same appearance where she spouted a number of “facts” “she knew” about the IIPA, she also contradicted the public record on a number of issues she claims “to know.”
Kidding? As a general question, I would be delighted to get your thinking on the likelihood of a perjury charge – how often does Congress invite in an expert witness for their opinion and then hit them for perjury when they offer it? Once a week, once a year, uhh, never? Just curious as to how you think that will develop.
As to the three points you noted, I agree – waiting for the transcript is a great idea. But here we go:
1. “the claim the INR memo “proved” Valerie sent or suggested Joe”
Lock her up! Obviously, one memo can’t “prove” anything – how dare she suggest it. Even supported by Grenier’s testimony and point 7 of the Libby indictment, it is not “proof” – outrageous.
[FWIW, here is point 7:
]
2. “the claim that Grenier told Libby about “Valerie Plame”
Huh? Do you want to argue that Grenier’s memory, which only came back to him in 2005, is false, and hence her recitation of it is false? You and Libby, together at last.
Or is it your theme that Grenier mentioned “Valerie Wilson”, or “Joe Wilson’s wife”, not “Valerie Plame”? Oh, boy, that sort of mistake is monumental. Not.
However, I would welcome a perjury charge on that point – after we all fall down laughing, the survivors can re-examine Ari Fleischer’s testimony – his claim that Libby used that name was actually relevant.
3. “the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger”
Nick Kristof, June 13 2003, second sentence, source later revealed to be Joe Wilson:
Or we could cite Grossman’s trial testimony, IIRC – that was not a public comment by Joe, but maybe he said the same thing to one of Ms. Toensing’s contacts.
Or, lock her up! Do we all agree Gitmo is too good for her? This sort of dissent can not be tolerated.
Isn’t that Jeff Gannon in the far right of the photo?
Ms. Plame has been deprived of about 20 years of her career. The civil suit should be good.
Tom Maguire @
261
Sure.
Let’s start with the fact that when Libby asked Addington whether the President could insta-declassify something (keeping in mind that his explanations that the “something” was the NIE makes no sense), he hushed the already-quiet Addington during the discussion. He uncontestably knew that Valerie worked at the CIA at this point, of course, because his notes show that the “spouse” whose trip he was researching was Wilson.
And Ari’s testimony makes it pretty clear WHAT aspect of this discussion needed to be hushed. After all, Libby told Ari that Valerie Plame worked in counter-proliferation (the same info that remain unexplained in Novak’s article, which make Libby’s July 9 conversation the most likely source for those details), he also told Ari this was hush hush.
When Eric Edelman asked to leak stuff (just a few days before Libby DID leak Plame’s ID to Judy Miller the first time), Libby refused to have the conversation on a non-secure line.
Now I suspect you’ll argue that this doesn’t mean she was covert (well–perhaps she wasn’t after Cheney had insta-declassified her identity). But care to explain why the consistent secrecy around these issues?
Tom Maguire @
263
Tom,
You need to take Victoria Toensing at her word. She did not attribute proof to Grenier. She attributed it to the INR memo (and probably was thinking of the SSCI report which misquotes the INR memo). She clearly said Grenier’s testimony said he told Libby “Valerie Plame.” It didn’t. And Toensing said Joe, not Kristof, said OVP sent him. Now, the “at the behest” language here is actually language Dick CHeney has used (when he told Libby that Plame was CPD), so you can’t really be sure the second source on this story didn’t give it to him. But one thing is clear, in Wilson’s op-ed, he does not say “The Vice President sent him.”
Now you may be able to point to different evidence (as I can, with the question of deliberate and covert). But Toensing asserted three things and NAMED HER EVIDENCE. And her evidence does not support her claims. Your providing other evidence that might (in a stretch) support those claims does not negate the fact that she made claims that the evidence does not support.
And, Tom? When you start saying, “maybe Wilson said it to one of Libby’s contacts,” you’re not actually strengthening Toensing’s case. You’re simply emphasizing the point that no known evidence shows Wilson saying such a thing. Which is what Toensing claimed it did.
It also reflected poorly on Toensing, who purportedly helped draft the IIPA (which was not the subject of the hearing), that she changed the language of the IIPA to suit her own convenient definition. She harped on the “fact” that Plame was not “stationed” overseas whereas the law does not have the word “stationed” in it. It has the word “served.” Toensing is changing the language of the law to fit the GOP talking point that Plame was not covert. By the language of the law she helped write, Plame was unquestioningly covert.
It is a standard move the goalposts GOP maneuver, like Gonzales saying that the right of habeus corpus does not apply to everyone, not even all US citizens. They get on TV and just make shit up. It is classic Bullshit as defined by “On Bullshit.”
To bullshit is to make something up out of whole cloth because it fits your narrative. The person doing the bullshitting does not care if it is presently false or will one day prove to be false (if you are talking about a theory as opposed to a fact). Your end game is just to trick the other side into thinking that you know what you are talking about long enough for you to get out of the room. That is why it is so important for a GOP congressman or senator to ensure that the witness is not under oath so that gives them the opportunity to later say, oops, I misspoke, my bad.
Leahy is right. Get them on record, in the open, under oath.
rbg (258)
yeah.
diane watson (ca-33)
i always get maxine waters’ and diane watson’ names mixed up. i like ‘em both.
thanks for the note.