Semi-Daily Journal

http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/

Plaming Creatures.

Isn't Karl Rove supposed to be too clever to do something this stupid? Doesn't Dick Cheney have a record of poor choices when it comes to national energy and foreign policy? Hasn't Scooter already been fingered as the leaker? Aren't Cheney's days numbered? Will we see Dick run on 2004?

I hate to say it (actually I don't, but it sounds nicer this way) but you are being far too generous with Drezner and his ilk. It is a virtual certainty that Bush already knows who the leak is.

If he didn't, he could certainly find out in less than ten minutes. If Bush really wanted to get to the bottom of the story, all he need do is summon Novak to his office, look him in the eye, and say:

"Bob, I want you to put the national security interests of the United States of America ahead of whatever responsibility you may feel you have to the person(s) who committed treason by telling you Valarie Plame's name. I want you to give me their names, and I want you to do it right now. If you do not, I am going to instruct the entire executive branch to never speak with you again."

Does anyone believe Novak going to tell the President no?

The fact that this conversation hasn't happened is the dead giveaway that Bush doesn't have to ask Novak to know the answer. He already knows who the leak is.

Now, consider that for a moment.

Bush ALREADY KNOWS WHO THE LEAK IS.

When interpreted in light of that presumption, the alternative to which is patently unreasonable, the actions by the White House take on an entirely different veneer, wouldn't you agree?

Two words - Scooter Libby

brew, I like the idea of telling Novak that he is out of the loop for WH communications unless he names names.

Novak will not tell because he is afraid he will be cut off from WH communications. The WH will not cut Novak off to keep him from naming names.

Prediction: It won't happen.

In the effort to figure out which two officials ratted out Plame to Novak, has anyone looked to see when Novak used the same label before? Searching through www.townhall.com and www.newsmax.com, I could only find two other examples. Here's the one that caught my interest, from 12/7/03: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20021207.shtml

"A prominent Wall Street investor has been informed by a senior administration official that President Bush, seeking to stimulate investment and the economy, will propose much lower taxation of stock dividends -- 'something you will like.'

"Such a proposal would reduce the actual taxes paid rather than just reduce the amount of dividends taxed. As such, its first impact would be a big revenue loss.

"While the White House was privately talking about this big tax cut, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was going in the opposite direction in Manchester, England. Reporting on an interview with O'Neill, the Financial Times said: 'Far from promising a hefty tax cut, he . . . hinted at looking at some proposals to boost tax revenues, not cut them.'"

This column appeared on the same day the White House announced O'Neill would be leaving. I'm sorta a newbie at this, but couldn't this be a lighter form of the same leak-n-smear tactic as the Plame thing? (In this case, trying to create the meme among conservatives that O'Neill is an unprincipled tax-raiser.) I don't follow economics much, would the policy outlined have been something new at the time? Someone who followed the O'Neill saga might be able to shed some light on it, because it kinda looks like the same thing to me.

The other example--less interesting--is about the President's 2003 State of the Union address, and Novak identifies this official as "a source officially described as a 'Senior Administration Official,'" inclining me to believe it's not the same person. This source tells Novak that at the time of the address, he had not yet made up his mind about troops.

Alex Parker

Brad DeLong writes:
>
> Is there a way to interpret the White House's response
> between late July and Late September other than as
> thinking that the blowing of the cover of CIA assets is no
> big deal and hoping that the press will never focus on it?
> If there is, I would dearly like to know what this
> interpretation is.

Well, there is another interpretation, but you really don't want to know what it is. Actually, there are two other interpretations.

1) The White House *does* think the action was a big deal, believes the action could cause them *immense* political damage, and hopes the Justice Department doesn't get involved and the press doesn't focus on it. If everybody would forget this, just like they forget the other stuff, the Administration would be home free.

2) The White house *does* think the action was a big deal, and only did it because they did some prospective polling on the Iraq issue and found that their numbers would be in the mid-30s by Christmas if we were still slogging around in the desert and most Americans thought the reason we went to war wasn't just a mistaken belief, but an outright lie. The only ammunition they have against this, though, is to discredit any and everybody who points out the uncomfortable facts of the matter. The only thing they had on Wilson was that his wife might have put him up for the Niger fact-finding mission, so they go with that.

Do I believe either of these things? I'm not sure.

For all the hype about putting adults back in charge, this administration has been a complete failure. Replacing a thirty something trying to establish a career with 70 somethings prone to senior moments is not a good idea. Was China well served by having rulers who were on their death bed? Was the US served well by a president who was in the initial stages of Alzheimers? This administration has proved that retro=failure. Leave the future to the next generation? Why trust the draft dodging business failures of the past to do anything other than self serving? A guy who could never admit he was wrong, never admit he was a drunk, never admit he was a draft dodger, never admit he was a business failure, never admit he was a stock cheat,..How could this guy get elected??? but for the money thrown at him by people who thought they were investing in tax cuts for the wealthy that would pay huge dividends and media corporations that would gain market share and other corrupt CEOs and wealthy bastards anxious to create a North American plutocracy.....

Outing a CIA employee is bad and the motive despicable. But how criminal was it? It’s rightly a felony to reveal the name of a “covert American agent” –nationality presumably indifferent, as the non-Americans risk a lot more. The material issue is surely not whether Ms Plame worked in the operations or analytical directorate of the CIA, or what Novak meant by “operative”, but whether she was or ever had been a “covert agent”. I would interpret this as personally seeking information from, or influence with, non-Americans while acting under a false cover, whether clandestine or diplomatic. Since she reportedly worked for 30 years in the CIA, it’s probable that her CV included such work, and counterintelligence agencies in several countries are reviewing old files to see who was on cosy terms with this “cultural attaché” or “roving correpondent”. But we don’t yet know. I doubt whether the leakers knew or cared about the distinction.

are we misunderestimating W again? What if W knows because he was in on it from the start. Not the actual leaking per se, but the moments before the leak, where somebody said, "hey, wouldn't it be a good idea if..." Keep in mind, W's been Rove's friend for ages and also worked hand-in-hand with Lee Atwater on his Father's campaign... Is it so unbelieveable that Rove and W had a sit down and talked about how they were gonna get back at Wilson.

Whoever's idea this was, it betrays two key characteristics, extreme arrogance and recklessness... Which to me, describes W pretty well.

Anyway, the more W circles the wagons on this one, the more guilty he looks.

James,

Plame's hubby was on the tube last night, and the issue of whether outtng Plame qualifies as a criminal act was raised. Wilson has never been willing to say "my wife was a spook till she was ratted out" for fairly obvious reasons. He did make the reasonable assertion, however, that the Justice Department's decision to commence an investigation represents a belief that a crime may have been committed. In addition, Tenet has taken a huge gamble in making a federal case of this. He is unlikely to have missed a fine point of law that would let this blow over, leaving him in the soup. Press reports indicate the CIA refers about one such case a year to the Justice Department. CIA probably has a pretty good idea of the definition of a criminal act under the law in question. The "maybe it wasn't a crime" story seems mostly a concoction of the right-wing punditocracy and the White House whisper squad.

Addendum: the felony law is on http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

The relevant definition is:
“4) The term "covert agent" means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States ....”

Ms Plame’s identity met test (i), but do we know that she met test (ii), i.e. recent service outside the United States?
You could argue that the law isn’t restrictive enough. If you live in say China or Syria, the revelation that a contact made ten years ago was with a CIA officer could get you into serious trouble. But the felony charge against the leakers depends on the exact wording of the law.

1. "Why doesn't outrage come equally from the fact that two White House officials appear to have been the principals."

The question is principals in what? If (as the Sunday WaPo story states) two WH officials outed Plame before the Novak story appeared, then there is justifiable outrage if they intentionally were seeking to out her (i.e., that they knew she was a covert agent).

But, first of all, it looks as if the timing in that story might be wrong (e.g., Dana Milbank says she wasn't called until after the Novak piece appeared). Second, Plame's actual position is (or, perhaps, was) ambigious (see Novak's piece of yesterday); so it's plausible that those WH officials didn't know she was covert, but instead thought she was just a run of the mill analyst.

If WH officials either were peddling the Novak piece after it ran or didn't know Plame was covert, the situation is not so outrageous. Assuming no intentional outing, it's completely legitimate to try to impeach Wilson's credibility as a partisan hack who was sent to Niger because his like-minded wife at the CIA was involved.

2. "Nobody in the White House thought their actions were a big deal until it showed up in the Post," and "Is there a way to interpret the White House's response between late July and Late September other than as thinking that the blowing of the cover of CIA assets is no big deal and hoping that the press will never focus on it?"

See above as to whether it was actually outrageous. Assuming it was, how do you know what people at the WH were thinking? Recall that the CIA sent the complaint to justice weeks ago (as they apparently do once a week), and the career people at justice just decided to open a criminal investigation. Also, the CIA is still working to determine if there was any damage to national security. I would submit that the proper process is playing out.

Moreover, take a look at Wilson, Corn, and all those who have been working over the past few months to make this into a scandal. To the extent Plame was covert and was actually outed in Novak's piece, those actors have done more to widely disseminate the outing and thus to put potential assets in danger than Novak's original column did (e.g., compare the number of people who read Novak's piece and made the connection that Plame was an outed covert agent from Novak's use of the term "operative," with all the people worldwide that know about it now by way of Wilson and Co.'s efforts). Aren't they just making the alleged outing and threat to assets many, many times worse?

Bottom line is that if Wilson and Co. thought that, as you put it, "blowing of the cover of CIA assets" was such a "big deal," they would have quietly reported the incident to the CIA, DOJ and FBI instead of working to create a scandal and to widely disseminated the information around the world.

This stinks of partisan scandalmongering.

KK: Blah blah blah blah blah. "This stinks of partisan mongering".

Why yes, you do.

KK writes

[lots of stuff, but I'll focus on]:

> To the extent Plame was covert and was actually outed in
> Novak's piece, those actors have done more to widely
> disseminate the outing and thus to put potential assets in
> danger than Novak's original column did (e.g., compare the
> number of people who read Novak's piece and made the
> connection that Plame was an outed covert agent from
> Novak's use of the term "operative," with all the people
> worldwide that know about it now by way of Wilson and
> Co.'s efforts).

Obviously, you're not being serious here. Novak's *syndicated* column appears in over 150 newspapers and is read by *at least* hundreds of thousands of people. He has been on CNN since the thing started. He is known widely for his close connections and contacts within the administration.

Given these things, you can be sure that what he writes and what he says are read with interest by all sorts of people working who are interested in the inner workings of the White House. And, like it or not, this means that his stuff will be read by people in foreign governments and people working for foreign intelligence agencies. For what it's worth, those people probably had the story circled by the time anybody else in the media had noticed what he'd really done.

I mean, for crying out loud: if I wanted to *maximize* the exposure some leak was going to achieve while *minimizing* the chance I would be exposed, I'm not sure that there is anybody better to leak to. Robert Novak just isn't the author of some obscure weblog or something. This is Robert "Crossfire" Novak we're talking about! Sure, more people have become aware of the fact that something bad happened (tm) given the recent media attention, but to pretend this would somehow slip by un-noticed. Yeesh.

Actually, as a full service blog, I can make a perfectly plausible case for WH inaction over the summer.

And I do, here:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/10/valerie_oplame_.html

Key points to ponder:

Novak called a CIA spokesperson in July, who utterly failed to wave Novak off, and I am not just taking his word for it. If the CIA was confused about her status in July, the WH may have been confused as well.

The CIA damage assessment is, according to the WaPo, still underway. Should Bush be firing people before he knows what harm has been done? (well, yeah, if the preliminary assessment is bad enough, but who knows if it is?)

IF her status is unclear, and the CIA is still puzzling over what harm, if any, has been done, then WH unaction this summer, when the press ignored it and the in-house line was, "she was no big deal" seems perfectly understandable.

We have plenty of partisan hype from Wilson, comparing this to Kim Philby. Please.

Let the process unfold, would be the argument.

Oh, Tom, really.

The CIA gets a call from Novak that someone has leaked the identity of a secret agent in a particularly sensitive area and he's going to run with it. They ask him not to, he does anyway.

They should have given him more details?

You know, after the last ten years, it ought to be sort of a relief to me, the proliferation of no harm - no foul Republicans.

Except of course that there was harm, and apparently the CIA thinks it was a foul.

It is their call, after all.

Maybe all the Monday morning quarterbacking was the reason ESPN took on Rush in the first place. Working the ref and all that.

I would love to know who Novak spoke to in the CIA when he called to ask about Plame's status. Novak says he talked to the the person assigned to handle his inquiry by the CIA itself. Does the CIA confirm his version of what they told him? Did they really just blow him off with a half-hearted request not to publish her name?

I'm sure his call is on record, and not classified information.

"It suggests that we need, at the very least, a new White House staff."
Well, according to the NYT (and via Billmon),
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/international/06PREX.html?ex=1066017600&en=345b58226a7dd43a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
that's going to be difficult at present. Seems that Condi is going to run both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cheers!

Take heart! The right's center of argument has now mostly shifted from denial to bargaining. They're arguing that it probably isn't that much of a crime, if any. That's progress.

Two points.

Nobody should assume from Brad DeLong's post that there were no leaks between the Reagan Administration and the George (W.) Bush Administration. Let me assure everyone that even the Democrat Clinton Administration leaked like crazy (GASP!). And the NSC under Clinton I was a lot less disciplined than this White House, I promise.

Second, The Agency in all likelihood refers cases to Justice mindful of Justice's demonstrated threshhold for pursuing an investigation. This historically has been pretty high.

Jim Harris appears to be giving an example of Bad Jim's point.

The question isn't whether there were leaks in prior administrations. The questions are (1)whether members of this administration committed a serious crime or, at least, a serious breach of national security, (2) whether they did nothing about it for months and (3) what they're doing about it now.

The answers appear to be (1) yes, although there is some quibbling about technicalities, (2) yes (there doesn't even appear to be any quibbling on this point) and (3) not very much.

Dick Durata writes [on the subject of a new WH staff]:

> Well, according to the NYT (and via Billmon), [snip URL]
> that's going to be difficult at present. Seems that Condi is
> going to run both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, that might well be part of the palace coup. According to the NYT story, If Rice is in charge of both of these projects, that means Rumsfield is no longer in charge of Iraq and Powell/State is no longer in charge of Afghanistan. Previously, Rice seemed to think she was just an "advisor" and not an executive, but that has changed. The greatest concern I have is still the deep involvement of the political arm in this administration in what should be matters of pure policy, and the fact that Dick Cheney is in control of anything. It will be very, very difficult to get rid of Karl Rove, but shifting power away from Cheney (and Rumsfeld) is something that can be tried.

Jim Harris, I think I've missed your point. Are you saying that all Administrations regularly commit treason for their own political gain? Or, are you saying that other things share the word leak (i.e., faucets leak) so this particular leak shouldn't be considered a bad thing?

My wife works, covertly, for the CIA.
Someone at the CIA asks me to go to Niger on an unpaid,expenses only trip, to....what? Just nose around?
I don't find anything to report.
I don't file any official report.
Instead of simply coming home and getting on with my life I choose to publicly disclose that I went on a CIA assignment and use my "findings" as a bases on which to blast an administration.
I don't imagine that questions will be asked about why I was sent and by whom?
It never occurs to me that by disclosing I was sent by the CIA my wife's CIA work might be uncovered? Revealed by anyone? I imagine that everyone who knows my wife's CIA status will keep quiet even though I have spit on the CIA as well as the administration?

Uh, do I talk to my wife about this risk before hand? Is she okay with all of this? With me disclosing a CIA assignment and immediately and publicly attacking the administration?
If my wife had a job where her safety depended on her remaining "covert" I don't think I'd undertake a sensitive assignment from her company and then come back and scream that her boss was an idiot in the NY Times.
Unless, of course, I wanted her dead, didn't care about her career or was actually trying to get her ousted from her job.
Wilson's behavior is highly questionable.
This guy is supposed to be savvy enough to be a "diplomat" but couldn't forsee a risk to his wife emerging from a controversy he created?
Please.

jag - I guess, if I get your logic correctly, anyone who goes jogging in Central Park after dark deserves to be murdered, and we should let the murderer go free. Do I have that right?

jag -- "please" yourself! It's not about Wilson any more. It never really was. Jim Harris -- we **already know** what the White House spin on this is. You guys oughta try for some value-added next time.

The frightening thing for me is that I've ended up hoping for nice Mr. Howard Baker and the nice people in the CIA to rescue the country from people much worse than them.

Incompetence aside, and PNAC aside, I think that everyone should keep in mind that Pat Robertson, Grover Norquist, and various nameless neo-Confederates have the ear of this administration. There's no reason at all to believe that Pres. Bush thinks much differently than they do, and his connections to them are real.

Normally in this kind of case you chuckle and say that the leader is keeping his militants happy but ultimately will be prudent enough not to give them everything they want, but Bush doesn't seem very prudent and I'm not at all sure that there's any real separation.

I joke about being a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not one really. Norquist and Robertson are known to be major players. They tend to keep a low profile but their influence is not a secret. I think a lot of people are ignoring the 500-lb. gorilla. (I seem to have a thing about 500-lb. gorillas -- the Saudi presence in 9/11 is another one; the long term effect of the tax cuts is another. Gorillas run in packs, I guess -- or is it herds?)

Political discourse tends by nature to be coded and restricted -- "everyone knows that, but you can't say it". But I think that since 9/11 the never-never-land unreality has been especially notable. I think that the Bush administration flourishes in this "let's pretend" atmosphere, which is a very bad thing. I really do not believe it is appropriate to credit this administration with normal good will or treat its members with the respect due their office.

Joe,
If a wife is murdered in Central Park after her husband FORCES HER to take that particular route home UNNECESSARILY we don't think too highly of such a husband do we?
Sure, we prosecute anyone who has committed a crime. But lets not forget that Wilson chose to bring attention to himself and to whatever connections he had at to the CIA that hired him. If he thought no one was ever going to ask "Who hired this idiot?" he has to be massively impaired.
People like Novak were certain to ask that question and it appears it was an open secret in Washington society circles that his wife did something at the CIA.
Again, what kind of man deliberately puts loved ones at risk? For what? In this instance Wilson was willing to increase the possibility his wife's position might be revealed simply to enhance the political opinion he was trying to sell.
Looks to me that Wilson got what HE wanted (attention) regardless of any increased risks to his wife.
Either he knew there was no "risk" to his wife or he disregarded it. I'm betting he's not so vile as to have willingly put his wife at risk. I believe he wasn't very concerned about her position "revealed" because she was never in a position of any risk as many people knew she worked at the CIA.
Whether she was at risk or not, however, I am all for prosecuting anyone who exposes agents protected under the law. That Wilson could be a low-life and that someone could have violated this law are not, LOGICALLY, inconsistence holdings now are they Joe?

It's amusing to watch the GOP spin at hypersonic speeds, emitting loud howls which signify nothing. Or, rather, signify high anxiety.

Let's review this matter again for persons such as JAG, who don't seem to understand quite what happened:

1) As soon as Plame's name was published, her career ended. Almost no one may read Novak (Mr. King, see my answer to you in the previous thread) but the CIA certainly does.

2) Other intelligence services also undoubtedly look for such information. As soon as Plame's name was published by Novak, undoubtedly the intelligence services of Iran, North Korea and other nations an intelligence official with Plame's porfolio would visit were ransacking records and making inquiries to see who she visited on her travels. Some of her network of contacts may be dead or in prison.

3) It has been stated off the record by an Administration official that the motivation for this leak was revenge, pure and simple. Karl Rove has been quoted to the effect that Plame was "fair game." It was not an accidental leak nor was it a rogue staffer: six journalists were called by two Administration officials.

Are you beginning to understand why there might be some outrage over this? If not, start over and try reading more slowly.

Spinning is not going to make this go away.

JAG, I tried to say it politely. You're a fucking moron.

Wilson is not the issue, and you're not right about Wilson either. Initially He seems to have underestimated the creepiness of the Bush White House, as did many, but we're all greatly in his debt for smoking them out.

jag - Let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are absolutely correct that Wilson is vile. So don't vote for him for any public office.

The fact that Wilson is vile doesn't change, one whit, the heinousness of what the senior WH leakers did to Plame. It is no defense to murder to say that that the victim (or the victim's husband) is a rotten person -- that the victim is "fair game."

Jag, Let's see if I have this straight:

Novak, a guy who works for a living reporting on politics in Washington, named a person as an operative despite the highly classified nature of that type of information. That isn't a big deal in your estimation because somehow her employment with the Agency was public knowledge? There is nothing unusual about our secret agents not being secret?

Further, you seem to suggest that former Ambassadors with decades of Africa experience are somehow unqualified to check out claims involving national security in Africa? In fact, this is so true that if one of them comes out against the Administration following claims that the former Ambassador believed were false reporters would automatically try to figure out why he was hired. Basically Wilson's resume isn't enough to justify his selection for such a task, right?

Based on these assumptions, you then claim that a former Ambassador should have known that speaking out against the Administration would focus attention on himself (something that we are to assume doesn't happen to Ambassadors otherwise). Since he was obviously unqualified for checking out this information people would have to find out why he was chosen. In researching his selection the public knowledge of his wife's highly classified position could be expected to come light. Wilson, therefore, should have expected that his wife's position would be compromised. Am I missing something?

Charles-

"As soon as Plame's name was published, her career ended"----yeah and Mr. Wilson put her at risk by his choice to trumpet his selection by the CIA which, in turn, enhanced the possibility that his wife's employment at same might be investigated as a factor.

"some of her contacts might be dead or imprisoned" ------yeah and she also might have had ZERO field contacts and NO ONE has ever been at risk. Since we don't know the nature of her work, who knows? Further, how likely is it her "contacts" are exposed simply by the use of her maiden name? Would any agent be so stupid as to use a real name in their field work?

"its been stated" that it was simply revenge. Okay, maybe it was. It is also possible that she was mentioned (by way of explaining to Novak how Wilson MIGHT have been hired) in a perfectly innocent manner. The person may have known her to "work" at the CIA and never understood her to be in a sensitive position. Is this likely? I don't know but its certainly possible. Just because "someone" stated something (however possible or plausible) doesn't make it fact.

This isn't "spin" its just logic. What you are doing is leaping to the conclusion that everything about this was malicious when, at this point, that isn't clear at all. Maybe it was totally nefarious and if it was and laws were broken, then fine, put the bastards in jail and/or impeach Bush. Until more facts are in evidence, my conjecture, logic and possibilities are just as valid as yours, are they not?

I know you want Bush impeached over this and a "scandal" is just what the political doctor ordered to save Democratic hopes. Fine, if Bush blows his presidency over mismanaging this thing he deserves to lose.
Just don't be too upset if and when no one can find a law broken or any harm done to anyone.

Charles-

"As soon as Plame's name was published, her career ended"----yeah and Mr. Wilson put her at risk by his choice to trumpet his selection by the CIA which, in turn, enhanced the possibility that his wife's employment at same might be investigated as a factor.

"some of her contacts might be dead or imprisoned" ------yeah and she also might have had ZERO field contacts and NO ONE has ever been at risk. Since we don't know the nature of her work, who knows? Further, how likely is it her "contacts" are exposed simply by the use of her maiden name? Would any agent be so stupid as to use a real name in their field work?

"its been stated" that it was simply revenge. Okay, maybe it was. It is also possible that she was mentioned (by way of explaining to Novak how Wilson MIGHT have been hired) in a perfectly innocent manner. The person may have known her to "work" at the CIA and never understood her to be in a sensitive position. Is this likely? I don't know but its certainly possible. Just because "someone" stated something (however possible or plausible) doesn't make it fact.

This isn't "spin" its just logic. What you are doing is leaping to the conclusion that everything about this was malicious when, at this point, that isn't clear at all. Maybe it was totally nefarious and if it was and laws were broken, then fine, put the bastards in jail and/or impeach Bush. Until more facts are in evidence, my conjecture, logic and possibilities are just as valid as yours, are they not?

I know you want Bush impeached over this and a "scandal" is just what the political doctor ordered to save Democratic hopes. Fine, if Bush blows his presidency over mismanaging this thing he deserves to lose.
Just don't be too upset if and when no one can find a law broken or any harm done to anyone.

JAG said
"and she also might have had ZERO field contacts and NO ONE has ever been at risk."

That is pretty thin ice you skate over. Does this mean you agree it _might_ also be a serious breach of CIA cover, with consumate risk of life?
And then, JAG, what is the correct penalty for those who perpetrated this breach?
rbb

Dear Mobius Klein,

If someone violated the law they should be punished. If it is shown they did it with malice, they should also be reviled for the abuse of power it reveals.
If someone were to die as a result of this security breach, I would expect them to be punished according to the law under these circumstances.
What is the "thin ice" here? There hasn't been any indication of any actual death or damage resulting from the disclosure of Ms. Plame's employment. Just conjecture.
If it is shown injury has resulted and the disclosure was deliberate and illegal, fine, fry em. But right now no one has any idea what really happened. Unless the "leakers" are exposed by the reporters they contacted or come forward themselves we only have one man's statement as to how Plame's name came up. Unfortunately for the hysterics out there Novak's description of events indicates Plame's name came up in a conversation by way of explaining how Wilson was chosen by the CIA....an explanation just as plausible as the suggestion it was a deliberate "leak" and a designed effort to "silence" and "intimidate" Mr. Wilson.
Right now neither explanation can be ruled out and no law can be said to have been broken absent more details and facts. To suggest otherwise, without more facts is simple intellectual dishonesty.
Isn't it liberals who are always tutoring us not to "rush to judgement"?

Jag, you have got to be kidding:

"What is the "thin ice" here? There hasn't been any indication of any actual death or damage resulting from the disclosure of Ms. Plame's employment. Just conjecture."

What kind of signs do you think we'll see?

Zizka:

Gorillas run in families- harems, I think. That should be good enough. On the other hand, you might try this: "Everybody is trying to ignore the 10 ton elephant in the room."

Jag - It seems that you've retreated somewhat from your sliming of Wilson. Now you seek to construct a defense based on the leakers' supposed lack of malice. This is the infamous "empty head, pure heart" defense.

Isn't it sort of sad when administration apologists argue that senior officials are incompetent rather than malicious?

JAG,
'Loose lips sink ships'
The point in preventing leaks like this is that we don't want to take the chance that somebody dies. If spys get routinely outed, then who will work with them?

You point at the lack of a body and say "No Foul!" But the damage is also measured by our ability to conduct ongoing CIA operations effectivly.

That said, the punishment due to a person who leaks a spy's name should be proportional to the real effects the outing has.

(You should take some humor in the masses of liberals defending the CIA tho.)
rbb

JAG:

1. You state, "Mr. Wilson put her at risk by his choice to trumpet his selection by the CIA which, in turn, enhanced the possibility that his wife's employment at same might be investigated as a factor."

This is nonsense. All ambassadors have regular contacts with the CIA, but there are only a small number of covert operatives. For that matter, Wilson stated he was asked to go to Africa by the office of the vice-president. It was media outlets that ascribed it to the CIA (see http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/07/cnna.wilson/ and notice the difference between the headline and what Wilson actually said)

2. You state "she also might have had ZERO field contacts and NO ONE has ever been at risk. Since we don't know the nature of her work, who knows?"

It would still be a felony with 10 years and $50,000 fine to release her name. And I ask you-- if you have one ounce of honesty in you-- to ask what you were saying during the Wen Ho Lee case? Most Republicans, not caring that the allegations against Lee were false, were demanding lynch mob justice.

3. You state, "What you are doing is leaping to the conclusion that everything about this was malicious when, at this point, that isn't clear at all. "

What I am doing is reasoning from what facts are known. While anyone would concede that the facts may be wrong, you are denying the existence of the facts or, at the very least, urging that we should ignore the facts because we aren't as certain as a courtroom jury would want to be. THAT'S spin.

4. You state, "I know you want Bush impeached over this..."

Actually, I'd rather that the whole country learned what a bunch of disloyal, corrupt, selfish, lying, destructive weasels are in charge of the Republican Party and threw the whole lot of them out of office on the first Tuesday of November, 2004. Impeachment is for Democrats who lie about sex.