plame updates
The Washington Post continues leading the way on the Valerie Plame story. Today's article should put to rest any speculation on the part of Bush apologists that perhaps Plame's role at the CIA was not covert.
She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.
...But even that confirmation should not be necessary. On Friday the CIA confirmed, by asking Justice to investigate, that Plame's cover was indeed blown. If she wasn't covert, identifying her would not be a crime. Speaking of crime, the Post goes on to say that more than one charge may be valid:
The disclosure could have broken more than one law. In addition to the federal law prohibiting the identification of a covert officer, officials with high-level national security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements, with penalties for revealing classified information.
And let's also not have any tortured rationalization that no crime might have been committed. The proof of the crime was Novak's column back in July, unless Nowak was lying about getting Plame's identity from Administration sources. Since Andrea Mitchell has confirmed that the White House was shopping the story around, such a prospect seems unlikely in the extreme.
Speculation about "whodunit" continues to swirl around Karl Rove. Joshua Marshall found this interesting bit of history:
Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.
But the White House has apparently gone on record -- for what it's worth -- denying that Rove was involved.
(Update: As Sean-Paul points out from the transcript, McClellan's denials on Rove's behalf do not appear come as a result of actually speaking to him about it. And as Billmon notes, for Bush to know Rove didn't di it, he'd have to know who did.)
Meanwhile, who said this:
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.
Some America-hating liberal or Democrat gone 'round the bend with Bush hatred? No, Dubya's own father.
As the WaPo story reveals, the Administration is evidently hunkering down and hoping the story will going away.
That lack of initiative is truly scandalous. Bush, who campaigned for President by promising to bring honor and integrity to the office, could have the names of the miscreants by lunchtime, their resignations on his desk by dinnertime, and Federal agents waiting to take them into custody at the White House door. But no, it would seem. The White House can spew all the platitudes about this sordid conduct being unacceptable to Bush, but there's no denying now that it happened anyway. Buhs's obvious unwillingness to uphold the standards his flacks trumpet so loudly belies any claim to honor. For shame.
But as Atrios points out,
[B]y making on the record denials - Condi, Rove, Bush - the White House has made this a completely valid line of questioning. Every White House official who gets up in front of a camera should be asked about a list of people, including themselves. They've already broken through the 'no comment' wall.
This story definitely has legs now. I predict that it won't go away until two White House officials are up on charges. Meanwhile, Bush would do well to remember that it's always the cover-up that does the most damage.
Marshall has more about Bush's see no evil, hear no evil approach. Marshall and CalPundit have both noted that the Administration is apparently willing to check its phone logs for other matters, so why not now?
Hesiod noted a peculiar silence emanating from the right. Well, as Claude Rains said in Casablanca, maybe not so strange...
Update 2: Brad DeLong reminds us:
Whether or not he knew about it beforehand, for two and a half months--ever since two senior White House officials called six reporters and got Robert Novak to take the bait in his July 14 column--George W. Bush has "condoned this type of White House activity." No heads have rolled. No sanctions have been applied. The White House's posture has one of hunkering down: that this is no big deal, that this will pass, that nothing internal has to change, and that this is a tempest in a teapot.
Whether or not George W. Bush knew beforehand, his reactions since July 14 put him well over the line of "condoning." We don't need to write, "If George Bush knew about or condoned..." We need instead to write, "Since George Bush condoned..."
Indeed. Once again, what's driving this story now is not the leak -- the crime is a matter of the permanent record -- but that the identies of the culprits, for all the White House stonewalling, appears to be close to becoming so as well.
|
