W Post: End of an Affair "It turns out that the person who exposed CIA

[Biernuts]

agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html>

Other exercpts from the article:

"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue."

"That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless...Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified."

"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. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

Will he be adding himself to the defendent (technically "respondent" since it's a civil trial) list? They are going to waste a lot of money in a case they will not win - perhaps their attorney took it on contingent for a percentage of the recovery but 33% of zero still is zero. Their $ will come from the book and movie rights.

Note of clarification - the press does a piss poor job getting the terminology right. Mrs. Wilson was not an "agent" but a CIA Intelligence Officer. Unlike Law Enforcement "Special Agents" (FBI, DEA, Secret Service, etc), CIA Agents are the foreign sources that provide information to our CIA Officers. A CIA agent is essentially a traitor to his/her own country.

[Supersedeas]

1. Whorington Post doing their Whorington Best

[rfranklin]

9. Who wrote this? It sounds like a letter or guest editorial...

Just the style of it makes me think that it is not a WP article or editorial.

[Nickster]

2. What kind of crack does this guy smoke? Friggin Hell.....the documents

were FORGED! They were signed by people who were no longer in power! How has Amb. Wilson been proven wrong? HOW?

Hey? Who told Armitage about Valerie Plame? Think about asking that question? Remember Novak said there were TWO senior officials? TWO! Not just Armitage....that info came from somewhere didn't it? ARGGGHHHH. Where the hell is your byline btw?

[NVMojo]

3. wow, that is so covered in Bush/Cheney slime that I had to wash

after reading it.

[Chef]

4. End of an Affair

You know, when I read this this AM, the odor that drifted from the paper was almost visible. To pat. To final. To much "nothing here, move on". I think these guys are whoring big time to get this covered up quickly.

[rodeodance]

5. "were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson;"----It is what the WH DID once they

found out her name (by whatever means) that is the issue.

No this is NOT dead.

[rodeodance]

6. Joe Wilson says his suit will continue. There was an article on DU yester

day about this (or the day before)

[Biernuts]

15. Trying to discredit Joe Wilson isn't so extraordinary. Every day

I open the paper, one half is trying to discredit the other. Given their profound disagreements with Wilson op-ed, I'd have been surprised by the lack of opposition.

But their suit can't succeed on "They were trying to discredit me" (especially since the 9-11 commission determined that his testimony was not accurate). To win, he has to prove not that were trying to discredit him - but that they outed her intentionally for revenge. There's no evidence that the WH know there was anything to "out". To them, it was a simple case of Wilson's tainted because the trip was a boondoogle arranged by his wife, an analyst in the CIA's counterproliferation shop. If true (the 9-11 commission found that it was - with no dissent from the democratic commissioners), it's a reasonable argument.

The problem comes because connecting her to the CIA reveals a past covert career. But what evidence was there to anyone in the WH that prior to the analyst position, she had been a covert field officer? It's not something CIA puts on reports. Since it's sources and methods information (as opposed to the intelligence product - the actual report) it's not something that would have been shared outside of specific channels protecting that information.

So we are back to...Where is the smoking gun that informed anyone in the WH that Plame had been a covert officer? Just one document initialed by Rove, Libby & Cheney.

No evidence, no case. And the recent revelations don't help the Wilsons at all - in fact they will prove that the
"leak" was careless talk by an opponent of expanding the war rather than a WH conspiracy.

Next question - would the Wilsons (and the democrats) be better off with a dropped case, or with a case that finds in favor of Rove, Libby & Cheney - A court case that "proves" that the conspiracy was "just another baseless leftist allegation by those who will say anything to get elected"?

[rayofreason]

18. Reasonable analysis.

This story is a dead letter, except to those who want to ignore the 9-11 commission report. As more exposure on the issue continues there will be more blowback of the kind that you allude to at the end of your post.

[rodeodance]

7. Novak wanted this out for the Nov. election. He called out Armitage on

a sunday talk show last week.

[jayfish]

8. Wow, That's A Real Hit-Piece They Have Going There.

A shame it's not attributed to anyone. No one at the Post wants to claim authorship of that thing huh?

Jay

[Biernuts]

12. I haven't seen the hard copy paper yet - but believe it was an editorial

and they never as signed. As such, they represent the view of a paper's editorial board.

Wilson's problem is going to be this:

His suit contends that the WH intentionally outed his wife because of his op-ed.

The original source, however, was the Dep SECSTATE, who opposed expanding the war into Iraq. And his comment to Novak was to explain how Wilson was selected for the trip in the first place. Although Wilson denied there was a wife connecvtion, the 9-11 commission, with no dissent from the democratic members, reported that she WAS the reason he was selected.

All the evidence points to the WH vigorously countering Wilson's op-ed, but that the connection to his wife was peripheral at best. There was also no evidence that anyone in the WH even know she had been a covert officer - not that the CIA would have volunteered that info since intel consumers get product (reports) rather than the underlying sources & methods. The case completely falls apart when it was disclosed that the CIA's official spokesman had confirmed her CIA association.

The Wilsons can spend all they want - but they won't collect a dime because their premise has no evidence backing it up. There is no document pointing to "let's out her for revenge" and no witness will testify to that effect. The only thing the Wilsons themselves can testify to is what they believe, not what they know.

After Wilson lawyer finishes with their witnesses and not one has provided any evidence of the conspiracy they allege, the respondent's attorneys will ask for a directed verdict for the respondents without even having to put on a defense. If there is no credible evidence supporting the conspiracy theory, the judge will be rule that as a metter of law, there is infufficent evidence to support a finding for the plantiff.

Now, if you have documents to the contrary, or know a witness that will testify to the conspiracy, go ahead and post the links. Without them, this case is a dead end.

[Snivi Yllom]

10. WAPO sneaks this in the Friday before Labor Day

typical

BTW, is Truthout and Jason Leopold still clinging to the ridiculous claim Rove was indicted?

[acmejack]

11. We need to launch a campaign demanding attribution.

I want to know who penned this piece of shit! A hit piece like this needs to have authorship assigned!

[Akbar]

19. It's an Editorial

As I understand it, editorials are understood to be attributed to the editor of the editorial page. This is usually someone not well known. (I searched WAPO .com for a minute and couldn't find the name, though if you look at a print edition of the paper, you'll find the name in a box on the same page as the editorials.)

[acmejack]

21. You need to further your education then.

An editorial can be by any number of individuals. There is in entire editorial; STAFF at a NEWSPAPER and there is a thing known as a GUEST EDITORIALIST. please do not patronize me. You may consider me to be quite stupid, but I am not entirely without education. My thanks for your consideration in the future.

[ThoughtCriminal]

22. Note the wording - "We're" adn "Our"

I do not know if it's significant, but the editorial uses "We're" and "Our". We are left to assume that "We" is the WaPo, but I don't know if that term is also used in guest editorials.

<snip>
"WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention"
<snip>

[Akbar]

24. Guest Editorials

In a paper like the Post, a "guest editorial" would appear as a column on the op-ed page or in the Outlook section on Sunday. It would be attributed. I doubt you'd ever see a "guest editorial" in a paper that takes itself seriously. The editorial is the responsibility of the editorial page staff. The editorial staff is hired by the publisher, with the understanding that the editorial page is independent from other parts of the paper that are supposed to be objective. The person who wrote "we" and "our" does not exercise control over reporters. On the other hand, the person who wrote "we" and "our" is hired by the same people who hire the reporter who is, ideally, supposed to be objective.

I figure that you'll see some responses in the letters to the editor on Monday or Tuesday, or may next Saturday's Free-for-all or next Sunday's Outlook. I think that if this editorial is not forgotten, it's going to prove to be rather embarrassing to the Post (nothing new to the Post, which continues to employ Bob Woodward and to puff up his books in Book World.)

[Akbar]

23. What a Great Example

of how online communications can be misconstrued. It never crossed my mind to think you were "stupid." I had gotten the impression from messages on the thread that people were confused about the source of this piece of opinion--whether it was by a columnist or reporter. I figured that you didn't know that it was an editorial, and, since I don't know you, figured you might not be aware how things work on an editorial page. Sorry if I came off harsh.

[Demeter]

13. Duplicate

I posted this 2 hours before yours

[Biernuts]

14. I salute your promptness! n/t

[Overseas]

16. Revolting spin !! /eom

[PurityOfEssence]

17. The real reason was to threaten other intelligence workers

Wilson said this himself from the start: it was a shot across the bow to the entire intelligence community that if they spoke out about the blatant lies and distortions used to sucker the country into their darling little war they would be destroyed.

A career intelligence worker who gets fired has no career anymore. It's not like life for a lot of us in most other businesses; we can recover from a firing, even if it's for extreme incompetence. The blowing of Plame's cover was a deliberate threat to all other intelligence workers out there that they would be deliberately ruined; the malice of revenge on Wilson was fun for these vindictive rotters, too, but it wasn't the real reason.

[Biernuts]

25. Invalid Argument. Not only was Val not fired, but intel officers

who are wronged by senior government officials have leverage for that promotion that has been eluding the the past few years.

Career wise, being ID'd as covert limits your postings if you are in line for a plum COS position overseas. That doesn't equate to being punished if you have a viable alternative like Val did since she had transitioned to HQs analyst - which requires no cover. Didn't she come in from the cold and opt for a Hqs weenie job because of their young kids? Not an uncommon choice at all.

What's devastating is that the revelation that she was inadvertently outed by one of the administration's opponents to expanding GWOT into Iraq completely undercuts the Wilson's lawsuit claiming the WH was punishing HER because of the op-ed Joe Wilson wrote. Really tough to prove they outed your covert past when there is no evidence that the WH even know this HQs analyst had ever been a covert officer. The 9-11 commission didn't help either since it found, without any dissent from its Democratic members, that Val DID orchestrate Joe Wilson's Africa trip. It was recklessly stupid to claim no involvement when her role was so easily provable and undercuts anything else he says since he is now known for not sticking to the truth.

Does it have an effect past the Wilson's? You bet - on two counts. First the time expended on that could have ben spent on legitimate issues. And Second, those shepple who drank the Wilson kool-ade are labled kooks, putting other of their statements in question.

[LiberalEsto]

20. It ain't over

until WE (and Pat Fitzgerald) say it's over.