Valerie Plame Wilson finally has her say, sort of, on the CIA leak case in the memoir “Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House.” (The CIA redacted many lines of her manuscript, which appear blacked out in the book.) Among those singled out for criticism is Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., then-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She was especially angered by a “horrifying” report by committee Republicans Roberts, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Kit Bond of Missouri. It concluded that Plame Wilson had suggested the CIA send her husband to Niger to check out claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium, and that his trip confirmed the claims. “In the coming months,” she writes, “many reliable sources told us that before the report was issued, there was considerable collusion between the vice president’s office and Senator Pat Roberts on how to craft the report and its content. So much for checks and balances and the separation of powers.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- gster on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
63 Comments
Senator Roberts lied and betrayed a CIA agent and put our nation’s security at risk. That sounds like enough to get another endorsement from the Wichita Eagle. Republicans, weak on crime, weak on national security.
I just wish the Republic Party would get back in touch with what they’ve said they believe in for the past 20 or 30 years.
They just may have had a point back when they advocated a Balanced Budget.
The pretty much had convinced me that the United States shouldn’t enter into international entanglements without an Exit Strategy.
The Republics almost had me when they warned of an oppressive federal government that could abuse my Consitutional rights to privacy, to a trial by jury, to face my accuser, to speak out when I disagreed with government. But then the Republics turned their backs on all that in favor for a Cult of Personality centered around George WMD Bush.
If the recent Republic Party debates are any indication, the only-est thing they believe in is that they’re not Hillary Clinton.
Y’know, that’s not enough.
It’s not enough to nurture a political party or a conservative movement base only on the seemingly irrational hate of one woman.
What if the Democrats end up chosing a man?!
If it’s an articulate man-of-color, their only option is the race card. Which they play so well.
If it’s a populist voice from the south they face, Republics will have to resort to “Barbie” and “trial lawyer” attacks to preserve their White House power. Just what does the “Barbie” attack have to do with the issues at hand?
We, the people of the United States of America, comprise the most powerful force of civilization in the world. You’re gonna cast your vote for leadership on the basis of a haircut? Of gender? Of skin color?
The Republic Party hopes so.
Did Pat Roberts ever release the second part of the 9/11 report? Whatever happened to that?
Did Pat Roberts ever release the second part of the 9/11 report? Whatever happened to that? Posted by: indy | October 25, 2007 at 03:37 AM
No, Roberts did not release the 2nd part on the intelligence committee’s report. Rockefeller did after he took over as chairman.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf
This is so wrong on so many levels. The republicans would have been so happy that their smear campaign on Plame/Wilson seemed to have worked at first…but the truth will always prevail, and they weren’t going to crawl in a hole without telling their story. So Roberts was involved in treasonous activity in order to save his party. We should kick him to the curb.
What’s Roberts side of the story?
Oh wait, Rhonda didn’t ask that did she. :)
Frankly, I haven’t followed the Plame Wilson case that closely because of the smell it put out. But the idea that comes to my mind every time it comes up, is so what? Millions of American military members display their names on their uniforms as they go forth over the world, in some cases eye to eye with the enemy,
to protect America.
The Plame deal is an “inside the Washington DC beltway” NON-ISSUE. Among real issues is the double-dipping salaries and expenses drawn by Plame and her husband from the federal government. And all in the name of security while living in the maximum safety of our nations capital.
I don’t think outing her identity was ever a breech of national security.
Anybody see this differently?
I do absolutely JWink. The whole issue of the President putting you in danger because you didn’t go with his program, is flat out treason. Let me put it this way. If I knew a spy was in the middle of an investigation, there are others who are tied to that spy who may still be in the region. So if I out that one spy simply because I don’t agree with them, the others are also at risk. It also keeps them from saying what’s really going on in fear of being retaliated against.
If I was a spy, and I had bad news for the president..and I was in a foreign land..it would scare me spitless to know they could out me, I could be killed and it be blamed completely on the foreigners and nobody would ever know differently.
It’s all relevant and connected. This whole thing about her being involved in the Iran nuclear issue…do you not think the US government has spies working on that right this instant? Did they all have to be yanked after Plame was outed and exchanged for those who’ll tell the president what he wants to hear?
Roberts defense: Dems. are partisan, I’m not, therefore I would not release a negative report on the leader of my party.
JWink, your not following the Plame Wilson case is reflected in your post. Perhaps you should heed the saying ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’
From an article on Plames book.
“Whether Ms. Plame, an agency expert on weapons of mass destruction, was responsible for his going to Niger is one of the key mysteries in the whole affair. So did she send him? It depends upon which page you read. Page 168: “I neither suggested Joe nor recommended him.” Yet on page 109, “a mid-level reports officer” said to her, “What about talking to Joe about it? … The reports officer and I walked over to the office of the [redacted] Chief to discuss our available plans of action. Bob, our boss, listened carefully and then suggested we put together a meeting with Joe and the appropriate Agency and State officers.”
And on page 186, Ms. Plame explains she wrote an e-mail that read: “My husband has good relations with both the [Niger] PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/65235?page_no=2
So ridiculous. Rockefeller has been chairman now for 10 months and STILL has not released the report he claimed Roberts was holding up….
Plame is a Democrat Party hack.
She can not be believed.
Her husband, Joe Wilson, is an even bigger liar and has admitted that he “mis-spoke” in his NYT Op-Ed piece, that started all of this.
Where did Joe Wilson lie?
Several times and places, but his Senate admission had to do with “forged documents” that he mentioned in his NYT Op-Ed.
Under Senate questioning, Wilson admitted that he had no knowledge of such documents at the time he gave his Oral (never a written) report to the CIA.
Wilson also admitted that those forged documents had no weight or bearing on Administration decisions.
Wilson also NEVER corrected media accounts that he had turned in a written report to the CIA. He did not.
Plame, by the way, was NOT covert.
Nobody has been charged with “outing” Plame because Plame could NOT be outed.
PLAME WAS OUT!
The woman who wrote the law the Plame claims “protected” her says, clearly, that the law did not cover Plame.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11171
http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.politics.bush/lie_spy_plame_called_on_the_carpet_for_lies_430143509t.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
Wilson outed Plame:
“Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
That is stupid reasoning. He is responsible because he should have known the administration would not like his answer and would ask why he was sent to do the job and would tell the publice his wife works for the CIA and recommended him.Yeah. He is responsible.
So much for checks and balances and the separation of powers.”
What checks and balances issue Rhonda? The president asked congress to support going to war. The congress voted to go to war.
That members of Congress (EITHER PARTY) meet with the President (EITHER PARTY), is customary and has been happening since George Washington.
They always meet – to ensure they are communicating and working toward the same POLITICAL PARTY LINE GOALS.
Nothing sinister here.
But your choice of words can be misleading
“collusion”
“craft the report”
Where was the illegal act?
“Classified” is NOT covert:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/fitzgerald_and_plames_covert_s.html
Fitz never thought the “covert” question was important, anyway, since his case was not about “outing” anyone:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp
Toensing wrote the Act in question.
She says that Plame was NOT covered by the Act:
“Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101788.html
brian
Dumb ASS!
If Novak can figure it out, so can foreign governments!
By the way, when Toensing wrote the law in question, you liberals treated it like the Patriot Act or the Wiretapping laws Bush passed: YOU HATED IT!
Specifically, liberals USED to hate this law because of the “restrictions” on a Free Press.
Thanks, Paulie for delivering the greatest hits of Republican lies about the Plame case. We can always count on you!
Oh, you forgot one, Wilson outted Plame, not anyone else.
Econ101 are you saying that the Executive Branch of the US government would commit treason?
Novak got his information from the Executive Branch of the US government.
“In 2003, he identified Valerie Plame as a CIA “operative” in his column. Novak reported the information was provided to him by two “senior administration officials.” These were eventually revealed to be Richard Armitage, with Novak assuming Karl Rove’s comments as confirmation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak
Are you implying that foreign governments could get the identities of CIA workers from the Executive Branch of the United States Government? Or, what exactly are you saying?
“brian
Dumb ASS!
Posted by: Econ101 | October 25, 2007 at 10:26 AM ”
BTW, thanks for this one.
It always makes my day when my posts can frustrate someone to the point of unprovoked, random personal attacks.
I feel like I am doing my work well now.
incredI didnt forget, lol check up thread:
Wilson outed Plame:
“Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
Posted by: Econ101 | October 25, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Plame and Wilson are a joke, in Washington.
It will be a gift from Heaven if Clinton puts Plame and Wilson on her campaign crew.
Kerry at least had the brains to dumb the two liars, after he figured them out.
Brian
Plame parked in a CIA parking lot, in a car registered to Plame, in a parking space with Plames name on it.
Give it a rest!
YOU belong to the “Treason Party” not me!
“YOU belong to the “Treason Party” not me!
Posted by: Econ101 | October 25, 2007 at 10:37 AM”
Oh yeah?!?
Well I know you are but what am I
And Brian
When you Libs toss out words like “Treason” you can not expect to be treated with respect.
Nobody was charged with “Outing” Plame BECAUSE PLAME WAS NOT OUTED!
A quick course in logic for you: Why can’t the Eagle, and everyone on this Blog, be charged with “Outing” Plame?
Because: Once outed, you are out!
“incredI didnt forget, lol check up thread:
Posted by: Econ101 | October 25, 2007 at 10:35 AM ”
incredulous,Don’t pass by my post at 10:18 illustrating how silly the logic in Econ’s washingtonpost quote is
Are you ‘out’ Econ?
“Are you ‘out’ Econ?
Posted by: brian | October 25, 2007 at 10:42 AM”
Sorry, that was below the line
This is a hard decision to make, who do we believe?
1) Paulie – a well known political hack
OR
2) Patrick Fitzgerald – a lawyer (and not a mere insurance salesman) who works for the dept of Defense and is intimately familiar with all the issues of the case.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
Golly gee darn, I am just stumped on who I should believe.
incred
There are at least 3 lawyers in EVERY court room
If lawyers are ALWAYS right, who do we believe?
Don’t they usually argue with one another?
Where is the Court Ruling that says Plame was “Covert” ???
There isn’t one.
There is no charge against anyone for “outing” a covert agent.
There was no such crime.
Again
Toensing is also a lawyer.
Toensing WROTE the law in question.
Toensing says Plame was NOT covert!
“If lawyers were always right, we wouldn’t need court rooms.”
“Innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law”
I state, factually, that no “outing” crime ever took place here.
To disagree with me, you would have to disagree with the two quotes, posted above.
The CIA themselves classified Plane as “covert” though the actually meaning and extent of the classification can be questioned. There are different degrees of covert she would have been in the lesser level of those degrees. Because of her assignments was more fact finding and not actually spying. But none the less she would have had the rank of covert since she would get field assignments to other countries. And acting more behind the scenes that in the open. She was an analyst, one who would review the information and making a opinion based on others information.
The problem is American way, that Sen. Roberts does not work for the President or the Republican party. He works for the people of Kansas and to a greater degree the American people. As such to put the President’s interests or that of the interests of one party or the other above that of the american people is a betray of the checks and balances.
An amusing story.
The radio game “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” gave Patrick Fitzgerald a child’s scooter – and told him “this one will stay where you put it.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12131206
writerBULL!Roberts did what he thought was best.If that happens to be supporting the President in the War, so be it.
By the way, not everyone with a “Covert” status is covered by the Act that Toensing wrote.
Furthermore, they would be listed as “unknown” status on CIA records, if truly secret employees.
Paulie,
On the case in question, Fitzgerald was an attorney, for whom more than one judge agreed with his case. So, it is a bit disingenuous to say that he was merely an attorney with an opinion.
Give it up, hack.
Bush, Cheney, et al. saw to it that justice was not served. But, I understand that is okay with you.
Paul you are not arguing with me or anyone else here. You are arguing with the CIA themselves as to her status. They did consider her covert. That by their own documents. She would have fallen into a gray area within the status is true. The looser term used.
incred
Show me a judicial ruling that says that Valerie Plame was a “covert agent covered by the underlying Act that justified the investigation”??
Can you find such a ruling?
Actually, even better, show me the case where a jury convicted anyone of “outing” the liar Valerie Plame?
Ok libs
So, it is your position that the CIA stinks when doing surveilance or intelligence gathering or interrogation of terrorists —-
However, when I CIA attorney makes a weak statement about Plame’s status, that is GOSPEL?
“So, it is your position that the CIA stinks when doing surveilance or intelligence gathering or interrogation of terrorists”
Project much?I have not read anyone write this other than you buddy.
(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (”CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.
He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
Why isn’t Wilson getting charged with lying to Congress in the SSCI investigation? Probably because he knew better than to lie about his assignment while under oath. The SSCI report makes that much clear as well; he admits that the Nigerien PM told him that the Iraqis tried to buy the yellowcake and elides the point about his wife as much as he can without committing perjury. Too bad Scooter Libby wasn’t bright enough to do the same thing.
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=665
Anyone really wanting to know what happened in the Niger/Plame/Wilson affair should read the entire article these exerpts were lifted from. Follow the link for the conclusion of the committee(Also, a reader sends this link to the report, noting the “additional views” of Senators Roberts, Hatch, and Bond.) The story is complicated and has two sides. The Wilson/Plames outed themselves. Bush had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger. The CIA didn’t share the findings of Wilson’s report until after the speech in question. Wilson leaked classified info (by his own senate testimony) to the NYT and WashingtonPost.
I challenge you all to read with an open mind the real details of the entire affair.
Why isn’t Wilson getting charged with lying to Congress in the SSCI investigation? Probably because he knew better than to lie about his assignment while under oath.Posted by: hungry mind | October 25, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Thanks for posting “hungry mind.”
I brought this up months ago when the story was hot and got laughed at. Sometimes, the Libs don’t believe the truth even when they hear it, read it, have it explained to them and repeated ad nauseum.
But hey, that’s the way the donkey particulates. :D
“the Libs don’t believe the truth even when they hear it, read it, have it explained to them and repeated ad nauseum.”
Don’t forget: Even though the libs many times KNOW the truth, they often have a habit of bringing up old news as an attempt to re-blackenan eye. Even when the basis has been proven untrue.
Today Roberts and the Senate votes on a bill to give blanket immunity to telecom companies that broke the law by allowing Bushllit to tap phones without warrents. We’ll all get to see whether Roberts is a loyal American or a loyal Bushie. Those are the only two positions available on this bill.
her husband has already started campaigning for Hillary.. he is just another political hack looking to lie his way to the top.. and don’t think Valarie didn’t have a part in getting her husband sent.. to many witnesses to support that she did recommend him.
With bush the checks and balances have been, his party writes the checks and leaves all Americans the balance!
i had to laugh at the neocon sites and blogs that paul uses as EVIDENCE
BG,”… to many witnesses to support that she did recommend him.”
You mean those “Swift Boat Veterans” saw that too?
Phant,”With bush the checks and balances have been, his party writes the checks and leaves all Americans the balance!”
What balance? We’re deep in the hole and falling fast!
Pmom
Do you consider the Congressional Record a “neocon site”???
No, I did not post directly from that record, but my sources did.
Try to prove them wrong, would you?
JedActually,I expect that the actual operating budget of the US will be in the Black by next year, if we don’t have another terrorist attack.
Try to prove them wrong, would you?
Posted by: Econ101 | October 25, 2007 at 06:41 PM
Proof by Libs Econ101? You must be joking.
The only proof Libs needs come from Democratic Union, Media Matters, Moveon dot pork and Colbert and company on the “Daily Show” or whatever it is called.
That or some obscure Leftist blogs that advertises health scare insurance crisis and bong stuff.
Regarding my earlier posts or Rosa Brooke’s column, and its potential validity, and Cheney’s thinking, consider this:
Immediately after 9/11, Iran condemned the terrorist attack. It provided intel assistance to the US. It basically tried to send an olive branch to the US, and enlarge friendly relationships.
The result of these positive overtures: our preznit, reading a scripted State of the Union address, prepared by some person or persons with influence, labeled Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, as tri-members of an “axis of evil”.
Anyone who believes that Cheney disagreed with this accusation, but was unable to convince the preznit to drop Iran from this polemic screed is living in fantasy land. In the same speech, Bush falsely asserted that Iraq had tried to procure yellowcake from Niger, after both the CIA chief in Niger, and special envoy Joe Wilson, determined was a fraudulent allegation.
Donald Rumsfeld alleged not only that Iraq had WMDs, he proclaimed, “We know where they are.” So our invading force went to “We know where they are,” to capture these WMDs, and guess what they found. NO WMDs. Which is exactly what the UN inspection team had been finding.
Why would Cheney and unnamed neocons take the fact of Iran’s *aiding* the US, and extending feelers to normalize relations, and turn this into “Axis of Terror” demagoguery? This is a sign of mental illness. It is a sign of depravity.
If Iran were bent on destroying Israel, and this isn’t necessarily true because American media distorts things, but even were it true, it would not be connectable to a threat to Europe. The Europeans don’t see a threat, so why does the VP think there is? There are only three possible answers:
A. Europeans and their leaders are blind to reality.
B. Europeans and their leaders have self-hatred and want to die.
C. Cheney is a congenital lying sociopath (because if the only real threat is to Israel, say that)
B. Cheney is delusional, seeing a threat to Europe posed by Iran that Europeans don’t see, because it doesn’t exist. Cheney may believe A or B, but his belief doesn’t make it true.
Remember the “facts” and “studied opinions” that launched the war on Iraq. These were false. Saddam was building a WMD stockpile. Saddam was working in collusion with Al-Qua’ida. A Shock and Awe campaign would cower Iraqis into quick submission, and they would greet us as “liberators”. It was correct to strip Sunni soldiers, policemen and administrators of their powers–the only people trained to manage a nation–and replace them with Shiia who had no military, police or administrative experience. The total cost of the invasion would be less than $100 billion. Iraq would be passified in “months, not years”. Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the invasion and pacification.
What single thing did the administration predict about the Iraq invasion, that turned out to be true? Zero, zilch, nothing, nada.
Now Cheney believes that nuking Iran is going to be necessary if Iran doesn’t completely shut down its nuclear fuel-enrichment program. Is it in Iran’s interest to build nuclear weapons to carry out a vendetta against Israel, much less Europe, or the United States? No, it would be suicidal.
Could they do it to send a message, “We’re a world power?” Yes. Setting oneself up to be utterly destroyed, and setting oneself up to attain more power, are two very different objectives. This is why Israel, India, North Korea, Pakistan and South Africa “illegally” developed nuclear weapons. How many have they deployed?
MPS
Wake up!
We just proved that Wilson LIED about the Yellow Cake matter in his op ed.
Therefore, what you just posted above is false:
” In the same speech, Bush falsely asserted that Iraq had tried to procure yellowcake from Niger, after both the CIA chief in Niger, and special envoy Joe Wilson, determined was a fraudulent allegation.”
——-
What Bush said in his speech was that Saddam had tried to buy Yellow Cake, in Niger, “ACCORDING TO BRITISH INTELLIGENCE”
Guess what? That is STILL true, British intel STILL says that Saddam tried to buy yellow cake in Niger.
The ONLY person to change his story is JOE WILSON.
Wilson LIED in his Op Ed.
Wilson said, truthfully, in his oral report to the CIA, that Saddam WAS trying to buy yellow cake from Niger.
Also
France and Germany are firm that they do NOT want a Nuclear Iran.
Where do you get off claiming that Europe does not support Bush on this?
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_wilson-plame-novak-rove_blame_game.html
Bullshit free information.
The balance that is coming due, it is a negative one.
“Proof by Libs Econ101? You must be joking.
“The only proof Libs needs come from Democratic Union, Media Matters, Moveon dot pork and Colbert and company on the “Daily Show” or whatever it is called.
“That or some obscure Leftist blogs that advertises health scare insurance crisis and bong stuff.”
The above sounds remarkably like the rantings of a mad man. Would somebody put this a__hole into a strait jacket. Thank you.