David Corn (The Nation): Valerie Plame Speaks--Finally--About CIA Leak Case

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Dated Friday March 16

Valerie Plame Speaks--Finally--About CIA Leak Case
By David Corn

Okay, can we finally get rid of one of the Libby Lobby's key talking points--that Valerie Plame Wilson was not an undercover CIA employee? This should be one outcome of the House oversight and government reform committee hearing on Friday, at which Valerie Wilson spoke for the first time at length about the leak case.

From the start of this scandal, confederates of the Bush White House (and backers of the war) have tried to diminish the significance of the administration leak that outed her as a CIA officer (as both legal and national security matters). Conservatives insisted she was not a clandestine officer doing anything important and that her employment at the CIA was either no big secret or no secret at all.

Read more.

I and some others are having fun with a Bush Bubbah named Pontificus right now. See page 2 of the discussion.

[Spazito]

1. I will be interested in Mr. Corn's response to Toensing's...

accusation that it was Mr. Corn that first identified V. Plame as a covert CIA agent and not Novak. From reading his comments at the link, it seems clear he wrote this prior to Toensing's testimony. I hope he does, indeed, comment on what she had to say.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I think she's right, in a way

Novak blew he cover by saying she worked for the CIA.

A few day later, Corn first used the term covert in writing about the outing. Nevertheless, the shit had already hit the fan at the CIA.

[Spazito]

3. Novak used the word "operative" which most, even lay persons

translate as covert so I would disagree that Toensing was right in anything she said in relation to Corn and Novak. She stated, without equivocation, that Novak was not the first to out her, whether the word "covert" or "operative" was used, Novak was the first not Corn.

Here is Corn's response on this, from Sept/06, thanks to Tennessee Gal for the quote:

Two days after the Novak column appeared, I published an article that was the first piece to suggest that the leak to Novak could be evidence of a White House crime--that is, a possible violation of Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law makes it a felony for a government official to disclose identifying information about an undercover intelligence officer (if that government official knows the officer is covert). In the piece, I did not state as a fact that Valerie Wilson was a "covert" officer or a CIA employee of any kind. I did not know. After all, I hadn't spoken to Armitage, Rove or Libby about it. In my piece, I merely speculated that she might be a NOC and explored the possible ramifications of this outing (if indeed she was a NOC).

The reasoning underlying my supposition that Valerie Wilson might be a NOC was simple. Before I wrote the article, I spoke to Joe Wilson. He would not confirm or deny that what Novak wrote was true. He would not say whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. Wilson noted that his wife was known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm, and added, "I will not answer questions about my wife." I placed that quote in the piece.

Link to DU thread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x431400

[Jack Rabbit]

4. I agree with that

That's why I qualified she's right with in a way.

Corn was still the first to use the word covert.

As he explains (this is the subject of another thread), even just after the leak, that Joe Wilson was still using the cover that she worked for Brewster Jennings when speaking to Corn about his wife.

[Spazito]

5. At best, we might say on this point she did not commit perjury,

technically, but she did make deliberately misleading statements with regard to this. Being a lawyer, albeit one with VERY questionable skills and an evident lack of a moral compass, she knows how to skate on thin ice for the most part.