Karl Rove and the CIA

[Tim Gratz]

John, I guess if Wilson is right about the death threats you may be correct about their origin since neither he nor his wife seem a danger to anyone else. But I would be careful about putting too much stock in any of Wilson's statements.

Although I did read something to the effect that the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA operative may have endangered sources who were assisting her on her other assignments.

If she was in fact a field operative as opposed to simply a desk analyst the revelation of her status may have put others in peril.

I do believe it is possible that whoever first revealed her CIA status to a journalist might not have been aware that she was classified as covert since it is my understanding that she spent most of her time in Langley doing analytical work at a desk. Then again I must admit I have no idea when the CIA attempts to conceal the identity of its employees and when it does not. Arguably, even the identity of a CIA bureacrat might be worth concealing because that bureacrat might have information even procedural in nature that would be of value to our enemies.

So, John, do you agree that whether or not it was illegal it was wrong for Agee to publicly identify CIA operatives throughout the world?

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Thought members should be aware of this article by Robert Novak:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-novak12.html

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after 2-1/2 years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.

I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices on Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation.

I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America.

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

Last month it emerged the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, would not be seeking charges against Karl Rove. Why is that? Surely Novak's confession means that Rove clearly broke the law. The affair also shows that the White House was endangering national security for the sake of discrediting an Iraq war critic.

Bush last year promised to fire anybody in the government shown to have leaked Ms Plame's name. Another broken promise.

[John Simkin]

According to an article in Newsweek written by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, it was Richard L. Armitage who identified Valerie Plame as a CIA officer. They argue that Armitage was an "administration moderate" who "enjoyed a gossip". The authors conclude that: "The initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone."

It amazes me that Armitage could be described as a moderate. Nor am I convinced that he had no intention of "harming anyone". It seems that David Corn and Newsweek are involved in a disinformation campaign.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKarmitage.htm

[John Simkin]

Richard Armitage has admitted that he was the original leaker in the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame case. Yet it is decided that he will not be charged with any offence. Why?

[John Simkin]

The biggest US political court case for decades opened in Washington yesterday when Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to vice-president Dick Cheney, went on trial for perjury. The trial in the district court, expected to last about six weeks, will focus on whether he lied over a CIA leak scandal. But it will examine more broadly the events that led the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003. Witnesses are likely to include Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

[John Simkin]

In this article the author shows the links between the death of David Kelly, Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson and Haliburton:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-plamegate.html

1. Plame worked for a CIA unit tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction and the A.Q. Khan network, which sold nuclear secrets and materials to "rogue" nations.

2. Cheney knew all about Khan in 1989 and did nothing to stop him.

3. Cheney's company, Haliburton, received a hefty fine in 1995 for selling dual-use nuclear equipment to Libya, then considered the most roguish of rogue nations. This scam would have brought Haliburton into close contact with the Khan network.

4. A Khan associate named B.S.A. Tahir, based in Dubai, was helping to supply centrifuge equipment to Libya. (Dubai front companies are used to ship American goods to "forbidden" countries.) Tahir works for a business concern called the Scomi Group. Scomi links up with Haliburton via a German concern called Cognis. The exact nature of these linkages are complex. (If you really must know all the details, go here and re-read the middle section until your eyes explode.)

5. David Kelly, the British scientist who acted as a weapons inspector in Iraq, warned of "dark actors" and predicted that he would 'probably be found dead in the woods.' On July 17, 2003, that is precisely what happened. Many people believe that he was murdered.

6. Valerie Plame was outed just a few days before Kelly died or (more likely) was killed.

7. Journalist Judith Miller of the New York Times was used by the OVP to spread disinformation. Judith Miller was also close to Kelly; she had used him as a source for an earlier book on germ warfare.

8. When the A.Q. Khan nuclear network was revealed to the public, Khan received no punishment from the Pakistani government -- and the White House did not protest.

[John Simkin]

Scooter Libby faces a total of up to 25 years in prison. Naturally, Libby's lawyers will appeal. Even if the appeal fails Bush will do what his father did and pardon all those who have been convicted of any crimes on behalf of the administration.

In this video, Howard Dean connects the dots between Libby, Cheney, the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, Walter Reed, intelligence deception, politicking rather than caring about the American people, etc etc...

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/48877/

[John Simkin]

Scooter Libby faces a total of up to 25 years in prison. Naturally, Libby's lawyers will appeal. Even if the appeal fails Bush will do what his father did and pardon all those who have been convicted of any crimes on behalf of the administration.

In this video, Howard Dean connects the dots between Libby, Cheney, the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, Walter Reed, intelligence deception, politicking rather than caring about the American people, etc etc...

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/48877/

[John Simkin]

Scooter Libby faces a total of up to 25 years in prison. Naturally, Libby's lawyers will appeal. Even if the appeal fails Bush will do what his father did and pardon all those who have been convicted of any crimes on behalf of the administration.

I get no pleasure from being right. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Republican Party knows this is how they behave in power. George Bush has just followed the Republican tradition of pardoning someone who has information about their own corruption. How can this be acceptable in a democracy? I wonder if Tim Gratz has anything to say on this. Maybe even he will be unable to defend this scandalous behaviour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6263616.stm

US President George W Bush has intervened to prevent Lewis Libby, a convicted former vice-presidential aide, from serving a prison term.

President Bush described as "excessive" the 30-month sentence Libby was facing for obstructing an inquiry into the leaking of a CIA agent's name.

Though no longer required to go to jail, Libby is still due to serve a period of probation and pay a fine.

A leading Democratic politician said Mr Bush's decision was "disgraceful".

History will judge the president "harshly" for using his power to benefit his vice president's former chief of staff, Harry Reid, the leading Democrat in the US Senate, said.

Lewis Libby, also known by his nickname, "Scooter" Libby, was found guilty in March of perjury and obstructing justice in a case connected to Washington's decision to invade Iraq.

His trial stemmed from the accusation that the White House had illegally made public the identity of a serving CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in an apparent effort to embarrass her husband.

Ms Plame's husband, a former US diplomat, had publicly criticised the basis for the invasion of Iraq.

Libby was found to have lied to investigators about conversations where he mentioned Ms Plame but he was not convicted of having directly leaked her name.

He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison, two years of probation and a fine of $250,000 (£125,000).

Democratic leader Harry Reid said the conviction was "the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war".

Responding to President Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence, he said: "Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone."

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker in the House of Representatives, said Mr Bush's decision showed he "condones criminal conduct".

The prosecutor who led the case against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald, challenged Mr Bush's statement that the sentence was "excessive", saying "all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals".

Hours before President Bush's announcement, an appeals court had told Libby he could no longer delay going to jail.

The judge ruled that Libby could not remain free on bail while his lawyer appealed against the sentence.

President Bush said he had until now refrained from intervening in the case, waiting instead for the appeals process to take its course.

"But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision," he said.

"I respect the jury's verdict," President Bush said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr Libby is excessive," Mr Bush said.