Jun 14 2007
It's been a long time since the summer of 2003, when the Valerie Plame case first saw the light of day (and the ink of newsprint).
In June 2003, the Washington Post published a front-page story that said the CIA had sent a former diplomat to Africa in 2002 to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase yellowcake. In July 2003, Joseph Wilson stepped out of the closet, onto the editorial page of the New York Times, asserting that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons programs was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Eight days later, columnist Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife).
Here are a few "truths" about this story that too many folks seem to forget:
1. Valerie Plame Was Covert.
Perhaps the June 2007 filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that confirmed that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent will finally be able to squelch the myth that Plame was not under cover. From that document (pdf):-
Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States... When traveling overseas, [Plame] always traveled under a cover identity [undercover], sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
2. Libby Was Charged, And Found Guilty, Of Lying
Scooter Libby was not charged with criminally leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press (although evidence presented at the trial shows that he did leak her identity to reporters). Libby was charged with -- and convicted of -- lying under oath and obstruction of justice.It remains unclear if Libby knew that Plame was a covert CIA agent at the time he talked about her with reporters -- which was at the direction of Vice President Cheney, according to his defense.
3. Bush Pledged To Punish Leakers
The President's public pronouncements on the penalty for leaking the name of a covert CIA employee have changed, although only slightly, some might argue, over time.2003, Bush: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is... And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of... This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action."
2003, Scott McClellan - "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
2004, Bush: "June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said 'yes.'"
2005, Bush: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby admitted to talking with reporters about Valerie Plame; both contend that they did not know she was covert. Only Libby, it seems, lied under oath during the fact-finding process.
4. Bush Can Pardon Libby
Bush has the presidential authority to pardon Libby, if he wishes. However, in November 2005, 16 former CIA officers wrote President Bush, "asking for a pledge not to pardon anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name to reporters and to pull security clearances of anyone at the White House who spoke to reporters about her CIA status."Bush, through his spokesmen, declines to speculate on a pardon pending an exhaustion of the appeal process. Some pundits believe that Bush might pardon Libby before January 2008 if Libby is forced to await appeal in jail.
The judge in the case does not believe that Libby will win on appeal.
5. Was There A Crime? Because Of Libby, We Don't Know.
One of the arguments that paints Libby as a victim is this: there was no crime committed.What Patrick Fitzgerald said in October 2005 at the press conference where he discussed Libby's indictment is this:
-
Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson...
It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged...
But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.
It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear...
(T)he harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.