I personally judge people on how honest they are with me, not on their politics. This is true at a personal level, at a professional level and at the level of those who make the laws that effect my life (though this, by necessity, is a lower standard).
A double handful of former CIA agents and directors - though I'm sure you know more than they do - has a lot to say about Valerie Plame's undercover status, in an open letter to Congress, delivered to hearings to be held tomorrow
Summary: She was undercover.
And they haven't been the only ones to call out the cavalier attitude being expressed, of late, on the Hill. This is a serious business, no? But I'm guessing some people will call this "CIA spin" because it's easier to say that than admit they've been lied to and swallowed it. Those who say, "let's wait and see" but then neither wait nor see.
===
"We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame‚’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources. The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this "talking point":
* Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, "And let’s be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day."
Article comments
1 - Marty Thau
CIA spin? Why, because it points fingers at the White House / Rove covert spin machine? Sure seems very possible, and likely to be true, to me. What do any of those who signed on to this open letter to Congress have to gain by this?
2 - Jude
Have you seen the front page of the Washington Post today?
3 - andy marsh
I was gonna make a comment on this...but first I'm gonna go find out what you're talking about ie. this mixed record thing...
4 - Temple Stark
My sarcasm got lost in the title, but should have been cleared up by comment here: But I'm guessing some people will call this "CIA spin" because it's easier to say that than admit they've been lied to and swallowed it. Those who say, "let's wait and see" but then neither wait nor see.
5 - Temple Stark
Jdde that was covered here
6 - andy marsh
the first thing I found when I did a google search for this guy...larry johnson...was a quote of his from July 10, 2001, stating "They (americans)are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
he continued with "None of these beliefs are based in fact. ... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."
He may be right in this current issue...but I'd say he missed the boat in 2001...
just a thought
7 - Temple Stark
a diversionary one
8 - andy marsh
I guess his bio at Berg tries to paint him in a nonpartisan light...it talks about which MSM outlests he's worked for and it says...he even worked for foxnews!
9 - GPW
TS:
This letter is interesting. So is the WaPo story Jude linked to above. But I'm not sure how it discredits GOP "talking points." To wit: If the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Butler Report are any indication, Joe Wilson lied about who recommended him to go to Nigeria and what he discovered there. The fact is, despite his early protestations to the contrary, Wilson's wife is the one who recommended him for the trip. The CIA did discount his report. And the British stand by their intelligence regarding Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium in Niger. While the open letter and the WaPo story may discredit White House claims not to have knowingly leaked an undercover agent's names, they do not rehabilitate Wilson's reputation on the salient points of the Niger investigation. So, I think you've raised valid questions about WH integrityâ€"and perhaps there are answersâ€"but Wilson's still a liar.
10 - El Bicho
Andy, I'm unclear about your response. How did he miss the boat? While we did have one catastrophic attack that doesn't mean we were the most popular target.
11 - andy marsh
only one attack???
it was 2 months and a day before the largest single terrorist attack in history...and it wasn't the first time we've been attacked!
do I need to go through the list again...you know...93 twin tower attack...USS Cole...Marine barracks in Lebanon...on and on and on...I'd say that makes us pretty popular as a target!
but hey...I don't work for the cia...I just live in this country!
12 - Bennett
Thanks for this Temple, it gives me hope that there are people of high caliber willing to stand up for the truth of the matter.
None of the talk about who recommended who for what trip abroad, what their report contained, or whether the information in the report is true or not, is germane to the issue at hand.
Did Rove "out" Valerie Plame?
13 - El Bicho
My point is that "most popular" and "pretty popular" are two different things. Israel unfortunately seems to be the most popular.
14 - rbp0554
>>We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation�s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame�s status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.<<
This paragraph pretty much sums up how I, and several other blogcritcs posters whose comments I've read, feel about the matter.
- RBP
PS: Here, Here to the letter and kudos to these ex-CIA operatives for sticking up for one of their own.
- RBP
15 - Randy Kirk
I won't surprise you with my response. Lets check the voting record of the FORMER agents.
16 - El Bicho
Randy,
they must be Democrats because the Republicans are now the party that is for big government and weak on national security.
17 - billy
"Wilson's still a liar."
the problem republicans have is that even if Wilson was a liar, which is false, rove is still gulilty of leaking and perjury.
wilson could be the devil incarnate, rove still committed a crime and is heading for the slammer. the more this goes on it looks like he may take a few people with him too.
18 - Temple Stark
>>Lets check the voting record of the FORMER agents.
With all due respect, something is either legal or it is not, regardless of party affiliation.
Their willingness here seems more to protect their own more than anything. That sure is a bias, as all groups may have when their livelihood, job integrity, and the reputation of that livelihood is under attack
And still, does it mean they are wrong?
You cannot see everything through the filter of politics otherwise you will eventually beg to be blind or it will just come naturally.
19 - Dave
Read the amicus brief. Plame was outed early in Clinton's 2nd term by the CIA itself to Russia (and later to the Cubans). This is a "scandal" manufactured by the MSM.
20 - Dave Nalle
Now that's a revelation, Dave. It would certainly explain why she was 'grounded' for most of the 90s and since. Do you have a link to the amicus brief?
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
Never mind, here is the link. Frankly, it's dynamite. It has citations and sources to indicate that Plame's identity was already known to the foreign intelligence community because of careless handling of classified documents by the CIA. Not only that, but the CIA confirmed that Plame was an agent when Novak asked them directly. If the CIA is telling the news media openly about her if they ask, then she's not under cover.
Go to the link. Read the footnotes on pages 31 and 33. I'm working on finding full copies of the articles they reference.
Dave
22 - Temple Stark
Ha ha ... man I called that .. Drones are still more than willing to think it's all "CIA spin" without asking themselves why the investigation continues and a reporter is in jail.
The fuse came out of that dynamite .
1) Where do you think some of these talking points came from? The end of Pg 30 is the one discussed verbatim above
2) You're missing the "may have", the "Washington Times report" and "If this information is accurate ..." Still swallowing.
3) A lot of this brief seems to trust Novak's word and there still are a lot of "Ifs ... ". Good luck on that. The Miller-Cooper case(s) failed by the way.
3) As mentioned before, this is a brief in aid of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, and the brief itself and the case was determined to be weak all the way around (in this case) (remember, their case didn't work?)
4) Jump higher.
23 - Dave Nalle
At the root of the two articles mentioned are statements by the principles involved in the case which have not been recanted and facts which have not been denied by the CIA. Regardless of where the articles came from, whose brief they were in, and the disposition of the case, the facts referenced remain what they are.
Dave
24 - Eddie
Dave wouldn't know the truth if it walked up, slapped and spat him in the face. His is the only truth. What he wants to believe so desperately it blinds him to the FACTS!!!
And when his version of the truth doesn't jive with actual events he goes for what our idiot brethren in the RNC are all too well adept on. Talking points and character assassinations. So they'll look at party affiliations, voting records, anything to take away from the disguntingly unethical at the very least to at the very worst...a crime!!!