Source Documents from Valerie Wilson Civil Suits
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on July 19, 2007 at 8:52 PM in CIA, Current Affairs, Intelligence, Joseph Wilson, Plamegate
by
Larry C Johnson
Today’s decision by one judge who dismissed the civil suit Joe and Valerie Wilson filed against Dick Cheney and others for the leak of Valerie’s covert identity is not unexpected and entirely procedural. If you are really interested you can read the opinion for yourself. I was particularly intrigued that Judge John Bates referred to the claim made by Bush apologists–”that “Valerie Wilson sent her husband to Niger”—as “erroneous” (see page four of the opinion).
But wait. There is more. The suit Valerie Wilson and Simon and Schuster brought against the CIA for blocking Valerie’s book has some very interesting items.
Wilson, Simon and Schuster vs CIA Statement of Facts by CIA
Number 1, and most significant, the Director of Operations for the CIA, Stephen Kapsis, provides a sworn affidavit detailing Valerie’s cover status. Anyone who continues to insist that Valerie was not undercover and not involved in sensitive operations is a goddamned liar, pure and simple.
Kapsis Affidavit Affirming Valerie’s Classified Status
Number 2, check out the statement of facts that the U.S. Government accepts. Most notable is their confirmation, again, that Valerie was an undercover operations officer.
The legal wrangling is far from over. One fact, though, is indisputable—Valerie was an undercover CIA operations officer working to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and she was betrayed by the Bush Administration.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Larry, she AND AMERICA was betrayed by the Bush Administration, as I think you well know. Bears repeating though.
The sad things here are, that outing any CIA Officer has become a political story and politically commuting a criminal sentence even before the man served day one, is just unforgivable.
Every US Attorney should be appalled… but of course they are appointed by the guy who commuted Scooters sentence.
Judge Bates…member of FISA, ruled on Cheney Energy case, and was an underling for Ken Starr. Plame never had a chance.
Larry…
Is it just my browser, or are the links to the documents in your post both broken? All I get is an error 404.
Also: Could you provide a link to whatever online legal repository has those source documents, please?
Thanks.
Should be okay now. The edit format was doing weird things to Larry’s draft but it’s fixed.
“Anyone who continues to insist that Valerie was not undercover and not involved in sensitive operations is a goddamned liar, pure and simple.”
You are referring to Robert Novak, among others.
You are also referring to Ed Roger’s, Right wing water carrier. He clearly stated last night on Hardball that he had been repeating the talking points on the war provided to him by the White House. Then he stated the same crap about how she was not an undercover Agent according to the special prosecutors who looked into it. What a tool.
Disappointing and disenheartening. I hope a higher court will take it. I’m truly tired about no one ever recieving any sort of punishment for their treasonous actions. And if not, can’t Melanie Sloan start slander and libel suits against what talking heads, reporters and others have been saying and will continue saying about the Wilson’s? Larry hon, you know better than I that facts won’t matter.
Anyway, I can’t wait to hear what you guys think of Mr Edelman’s letter to Hilary.
We had a problem with the links. Finally got them fixed thanks to Susan UNPC.
I just had a problem posting a comment. The screen went blank, then redirected to yahoo or something, then Larry’s post disappeared again. Then it returned.
Dee Loralei,
Really, when will anyone in the Bush administration be held accountable?
Edelman’s letter was outrageous. The Pentagon doesn’t tell the Senate what it can or can’t do. Heard Hillary is readying a response.
Probably a hitch during the editing process. Should be a-okay now. Let us know. And thanks for the precise description of what happened — that’s a big help.
A Bush recess appointee to the Defense Dept. telling an elected representative of the people to keep her mouth shut? A guy who used to grovel for Paul Wolfowitz and shine Dick Cheney’s shoes? If Gates had any naugas, he’d fire Edelman pronto; for that matter, if the Dems had any, they’d impeach this half-wit.
Yup, links work great. Many thanks.
I find the timing of Edelman’s letter to be most interesting; I wonder why the pentagon is responding this way presently. Furthermore, I also have to wonder why Hillary was singled out considering her request is really nothing new and other democratic front runners have asked similar if not more challenging questions.
Finally, as to the Plame decision … I am outraged but not surprised. The neoconic cabal that operates unababted within the bush adminstration will continue with their criminal plots knowing full well they are protected. This will not change as long as individual republican law makers continue to support them either through fear, blackmail or just plain ignorance.
Gee, I wonder why indeed…let’s see:
• Hillary isn’t just a presidential candidate from the opposition party, she’s the leading presidential candidate
• A Clinton defeated George W’s daddy
• It’s a Rovian strategy to rally the base, by labeling Hillary a traitor and by extension all Democrats [little over half the nation] leading up to the 2008 election. Especially when Congress is all hot and bothered over investigating the Bushies. [Look over there, it's al Qaeda!]
• It’s just a coincidence that this is occuring at the same time as the release of the NIE report, the capture of 200th +/- TOP al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Petraeus’ upcoming Iraq report in support of Bush, etc. Please move along, nothing to see here.
Larry,
Scooper, Cheney, and Wolfee dressed rehersed their planned attack on Valerie by sending Wolfee’s girlfriend to Iraq just the CIA sent Ambassador WIlson. It was all rehersed even down to writing down phony questions in the marginals of Wilson’s Op-Ed.
They change the E.O. to muddy the water for Scooper.
Demand the truth.
Larry, I don’t think it should ever be “expected” that a judge will rule that exposing a covert agent and then obstructing justice is within the normal duties of a federal official.
What should be expected is that judges will reflect on the question, “How will this decision reflect on the law itself?” If the law itself has become corrupt, then what remedy is there?
having trouble posting links and comments. just disappeared… trying again.
troop duty in Iraq just extended…
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19285857.htm
cut and paste try
Just so everyone doesn’t go off on a tangent about the memorandum speaking truth to power, it is standard for the judge to presume everything that the plaintiff alleged is truthful. Read the statute. He is not voicing an opinion on whether the facts, as presented, were in fact truthful. Sorry. But that’s the law.
Sue, you have a point. But Scooter Libby is not your typical defendant. He has been convicted of lying and obstructing justice.
Judges do not take the word of perjurers at face value. But by ignoring every principle of equity, this judge did not need to rely on Scooter Libby. He relied on the principle that the government is above the law.
Better yet, ask Larry to consult an attorney before he opines.
I really like the emoticons. Kudos to the person who designed the site. Only complaint is the reply mechanism. It should not go back to the original poster’s comment since most people are like me and don’t check back to their earlier posts. But otherwise, great design!
Would be nice if the original comment poster could go back and edit his/her post, too.
Stoic,
Yes, but that is minor compared to not being able to determine someone has responded to you without scrolling back through all of the comments. But, I like the new digs, overall.
No criminal case, no civil case, no nothing… In words that even CIA geeks could understand, this result was a “slam dunk” for the Veep…
Dan, this isn’t the end of the road for Valerie Plame; she can still file in a higher court, and I think she will.
Well… Just what the heck can you do when your leaders themselves are traitors?
Our justice system is a F@#King joke and the whole world knows it. If we can’t even remove a psychopathic president who gets his direction from “jesus” or what i call the voices in his head, then what chance do we have of EVER getting these war criminals for what they have done? They are going to ride off into the sunset and play golf the rest of their days while out soldiers get ground to bits.
Goddamn them to hell!
Wine, I need some wine.
Steambomb,
I wondered the same thing when those who are sent to gather information put themselves in the position of trying to determine policy. Maybe if Wilson had not tried to elevate himself out of “low level” all of this would have been avoided. But I doubt you see it that way.
Most intriguing is that the judge basically said that the Bush Administration officials could not be sued because killing U.S. operatives and destroying the career of CIA agents is within the job description of Bush Administration officials. While I knew beforehand that this was probably true, now a judge has made it official: it is the job of Bush Administration officials to work against the best interests of the nation.
Alrighty, then!
Donovan Fraser, I must disagree. It should be hard to remove a President from office. The Clinton impeachment showed just how easy it can be for an unscrupulous Congressional leadership to bring about an impeachment.
What we need are better politicians.
Its NOT anyones job to do any of that..except maybe ENEMY AGENTS..and especially not the Job of anyone in the the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT..or anyone in the United States MEDIA..including REPORTERS..People in the Bush Administration right on down to Robert Novak knew better than to Comment On..Disclose information of ..or expose the Idenity of VALORIE PLAME..Her Job at CIA..and her Marriage to Joe Wilson..FULL DISCLOSURE..Background Information..
There is no doubt in my Mind the Players knew she was COVERT..and the informtion they were disclosing was HIGHLY CLASSIFIED..You DO NOT givd the Media that kind of Information about CIA Agents or CIA OPERATIONS,,and since it Involved Valorie and the WMD Desk..at a time when the Bush administration was making a Case foir going to War with Iraq over WMDS..it all Pass’s the smell test of being done Delibertly to Expose and OUT Her…distrubt her CIA Status and CIA Operations and then made into a Personal attack on her Distinguished husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson..and it has been a Very Obvious On going Campaign to Discredit Joe and Valorie ever since..in order to keep the Focus off the REAL VILLIANS..all of Whom MUST be held Accountable..up to and including FULL Exposure..
of the PLOT..Compensation for the Wilsons..and for those responsible for this deliberate HENIOUS and TRAITOROUS ACT to be held Accountable..
One way or the other..It was all deliberate..or why did they ..
(Bush Administration People) do it..??
To discredit Joe..?? Was He a Threat to them and thier Plans..?
To Out Valorie and disrupt her Operations at CIA..??
Did they see her as a threat because they feared she could Prove them Wrong and Expose them..??
Was it all just a coincidence that she was working on WMD Intel at a time this Administration was making WMDS Major Policy issues../
Was all this a Pre planned Operation to set Joe and Valorie Up..?
COINCIDENCE or CONVIENENCE..??especially regarding Iraq…an Arena that BOTH Joe and Valorie were QUALIFIED EXPERTS on..and were Two People this administration SHOULD have been going to if they wanted to Know the TRUTH and obtain GOOD Information..
But What
did the Bush administartion do instead.??.Set Up an Operation to discredit and Destroy them both .The Record and the Evidence is Clear…They made it very obvious they FEARED both Joe and Valorie..because Joe and Valorie were HONORABLE..they both knew the TRUTH..They stood Up for the TRUTH..and they Couldn’t be BOUGHT..and they sttod in the way of the Bush Neo_Cons..
No matter how much they try to make this Situation Go Away..It Must NEVER go away..its a Battle that must Be FOUGHT..The Wilsons deserve Our Support.. there Must be Accountability..and the TRUTH Must be told..
When People in Our Government get this Far out of Control..and do so much DAMAGE to others..while GAINING so much for THEMSELFS.. then thier Motives must be exposed..and they Must be EXPOSED..and pay for the damage they have done..to WE..THE PEOPLE..to the United
States..to Our Military…and to the People of Iraq..
In My Opinion..they were Criminal Acts..
Hey, Boy named Sue: I’m not sure what happened to Larry’s “Sue Post”; but since you are craving attention I decided to enthrall the NQ regulars with a recent snap of you, even though I don’t think pink is your color:
http://www.xes.cx/pics-misc/20047191672217043.jpg
I would recommend some sturdy kneepads and perhaps a knapsack stocked with diapers, since those you enjoy blowing enjoy that sort of thing. tata dahling……..
I’m guessing that this is how wingnuts think CIA agents get to work in the morning.
So Larry, did you ever take that route? Did they ever get the cone of silence to work?
Cujo359,
Or maybe like this
Or Cujo359,
Maybe they don’t ever have to enter Langle because they’re…holograms
What is it with you so-called liberals? You are more homophobic than Jerry Fallwell was. But the picture was funny. Thanks for the smile.
Wow. A sensible person here.
OK, I want to know how this guy got into Langley?
My goodness Patrick Henry. You started out so forceful and strong in your convictions only to end in a whimper. How about Joe and Val had the largest obligation to keep her identity secret, if indeed she was covert, and part of that obligation doesn’t involve your husband taking on the president and vice president during the middle of a war with false accusations? It sure is convenient that Joe waited to stop a war until after the war was well underway. Don’t you agree? And how convenient that Joe missed the State Department’s questions to Iraq in December 2002 about Niger uranium? Pretty fuukin convenient if you ask me. But you didn’t.
How else would he have arrived since he also claims he was covert?
Sue;
According to my buddy in the Air Force, the war was already well under-way in December of 2002. In fact, as early as December 2001, we were increasing deployments to Saudi Arabia - my buddy got sent over there, and scuttlebutt was that we (the US) were going into Iraq (”Bush is going to take out Saddam no matter what”). Troops, equipment, and materiel were being staged as fast as the transports could fly them over. They had 16 guys sleeping in 8-man tents, because they screwed up on the tents. And in late 2002, US patrols were routinely crossing the border into Iraq, and not all of these incursions were free of violence. Just free of publicity.
So yeah - Joe Wilson was far too late to stop it.
Joe Wilson didn’t try to stop it.
And for what it’s worth, everyone knew we were there in 2002. Why else did Saddam allow inspectors back in? Troops on the borders about to come over. I take it you didn’t watch the nightly news back then if you needed your buddy in the Air Force to clue you in.
OBF,
Yup! And do not forget that the air “war” (naked, unprovoked aggression is a much better word - war implies at least SOME mutuality) began quite early in 2002 as Bush’s military greatly increased both the number and magnitude, and changed the targets, of the regular bombing runs maintained throughout the eight years of Clinton’s high level economic, social, intellectual, and low level military siege of Iraq.
Holy Crap!
Distinguished Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote an Op Ed called “What I didn’t find in Niger”..as a way of standing up to the Bush Administration and to get the TRUTH OUT to the American People….there were also other Reliable Inestigations and Reports that supported what Joe Wilson found during his own Investigation..
The Bush Administration lied to the American People and dummied up the Intelligence..and ignored the TRUTH..and Abused the Powers of thier Office ..and MANIPULATED EVENTS in Order to Delibertly start a War and Occupy IRAQ..an Event that had NOTHING to do with a Proper Response by the United States Government to the 9/11 attacks..
The use of the United states Military for the Permanent Occupation of IRAQ..is a Strategic Plan of the NEO-CONS..and the Means and Methods to carry out that Plan are UN~AMERICAN..and Unprecendented..
The Bush administration has NOT Apprehended BIN LADEN.. WHY..??
The Bush Administration has FAILED on every Level..Covered up with Lies and Alibies..and ATTACKS and ridicules Concerned Citizens who
stand up to them like Joe and Valorie ..
Well, there just seems to be this unspoken idea around the whole Joe Wilson thing that, if only everyone had listened to poor old Joe, and if only they hadn’t outed Valerie Plame, we wouldn’t be in Iraq.
That’s false. (unfortunately).
Now, had they listened to Joe Wilson (and Hans Blix, and all the rest) - it should be clear to everyone by now, that George W Bush had already spent about $50 Billion on a huge military buildup in the Gulf. It was going to be justified, one way or another. In fact, I think that was the plan all along, and in this case, it just went bad - I mean, appallingly terribly bad. Somehow, they just totally lost control of the message, and the truth got away from them, and they spent so much effort in damage control that it became obvious to everyone that they were lying. (well, everyone except those in a willful state of denial).
This is sort of like that feeling you get when you spend $45,000 on a new car, and it’s a piece of crap. You HAVE to act like you love it. You HAVE to tell everyone you love it. You HAVE to convince yourself, you love it. It’s the best car in the world. Pure driving satisfaction. Looks so sleek and sexy hooked up to the back of that tow-truck. Otherwise, you’re a fool, right?
I have to say this; until Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN, *I* was convinced Saddam had WMD, and we had to get rid of him. Colin Powell’s lame presentation changed my mind, and turned me sour on the war. By then it was too late. Why couldn’t we just pack up our stuff and go home? Bygones? $50 Billion actual wasted, spent dollars, versus the specter of a possible fiasco. And it was clear, after 9/11 that we needed those troops *SOMEWHERE* in the vicinity. . .
. . . and here’s where I think Bush’s vision really failed. Not only in the lying. Not only in the BAD lying. Not only in the arrogant lawlessness. But we really needed those troops in Afghanistan. And we had no way to get them IN - and no way to get them OUT. Either by plane (very slow for that large number), or we would have to negotiate a deal with Mushtarraf. Remember? Mushy would not let us march our troops across Pakistan to get into Afghanistan. I thought that this should piss off any American at the time. But most people were oblivious. So here’s another place, where Bush utterly failed us, because he gave Mushtarraf a free-pass. (Never mind the BushCo ulterior motives for going into Iraq in the first place).
Billy Sue Bob - Why you’re just a regular Bush ball washer aren’t ya? Or would you prefer that be scrotum scrubber? You remind me of Baghdad Bob with your bullshit - just a regular source of misinformation.
Shit, I can friggin’ scream all day & night long that my Red Wings won the Stanley Cup - but guess what? It still isn’t so.
What’s your tale on outing undercover cops in the middle of a drug bust? Did you say a prayer for Benedict Arnold on July 4th? Perhaps the DNC pays you to make right wingers look stupid.
To all, especially Larry,
Just happened to catch the first part of “Mission Impossible” last night on USA Network (the first one - the second one is one of the worst films ever). For a spy film, it’s pretty thrilling, but I had forgotten that the central plot is about uncovering a mole who is trying to steal the names of all the Eastern Europeans in the CIA spy network and sell them to the highest bidder. No question to anyone in the film that this would lead to mass executions and is a VERY BAD THING. I’m sure the first film came out in, what, the middle 90s, but perhaps there should be a rerelease of it, eh? How dare these bastards say Valerie wasn’t covert and even if she was, so what. Loathesome creatures.
An old former CIA buddy and I went and saw the new Bruce Willis Film..”LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD.”.its set in NY and DC..Willis is a NYPD Cop..He gets caught up in a Plot where a Group of Bad Guys use computer Hackers and Mercs to take down every Computer system..Communications systems..Financial Systems and all support systems in the United States.. The make up of the Bad Guys is interesting..Lots of Non Stop Action..Lots of Intrigue..Worth seeing..Makes You think..
My Buddy and I also went down to the Viet Nam war memorial..since he spent alot of time there..for a day of reflection and Meditation and to pay our RESPECTS..As the sign there says..its SACRED GROUND..
As we walked along…there was a little boy ahead of us who stopped at each panel..Placed both little hand on the panel over the names inscribed there…and he bowed His head as tho saying a Prayer..I think children understand things better than some Adults..
The wall is 200 feet long…with approximately 58,000 names on it..
I kept asking myself why..For What political purpose..??
My Brother in Law was in Nam..Got half his face destroyed..Got and eye blow out by an IED..Fought the TET Offensive..
He went back for two more tours..AFTER He got blown Up..and later died from his Injurys..
I asked him Why He went Back..He said..”Thats where my TEAM was..”
Standing there makes one feel Humble..
it also makes One realize how Precious LIFE is..and how Important GOOD LEADERSHIP is..when those LEADERS hold the LIFES of Good People like those whose names are written on that Wall in thier Hands..or those now serving In Iraq and around the World..
Keep them in Your thoughts and prayers..
Remember a VET..
Maked Sure your VOTE Counts..so these great People and thier Familys get GOOD Leadership..the kind that Respects the Service and Sacrifice of those SERVING in our military..
The kind of Leadership that will NEVER put them in harms way..without good and justifiable Cause..
The kind of Leadership and Leaders who FIRST go down to our War Memorials…go down the the Viet Nam Wall..and spend a day on SACRED GROUND..before any of them makes the decisions that will start or support a WAR..and where they may learn to appreciate the Sacrifices those in our Military Make..and that they deserve thier Benefits and compensation..when those come up for a Vote..
As far as I can see..there are few Politicians today who Understand.. DUTY….HONOR…COUNTRY..like those in our Military service do..
They are the few in Government Service who have my Lasting Love and RESPECT..and Admiration..
Professional Athletes and Celebritys who get Multi Million dollar Contracts ..who become Billionaires..for Entertaining the Mass’s..should all go down to the Viet Nam Wall..and remember that every name there represents a human life..a Fellow American..making a few hundred bucks a month.. dying in the jungles of Nam..for
“FREEDOM” and “DEMOCRACY” ..or just because thier Government sent them there..
The LIFES of So Many..In the Hands of so FEW..
Some of Us Appreciate thier Sacrifices..and Honor them..
Some AMERICANS are just getting RICHER…without out ever thinking about those who SERVE or have served..
It is easier to Thread a Camel through the Eye of a Needle..than for a Rich Person to Inherit the Kingdom of Heaven..
Blessed are the peace Makers..
There’s that homophobia again. And from someone using ‘taters’ as his screen name.
Hopefully, as the wife of an undercover cop, I’d know better than to jump into the middle of a drug bust and draw attention to him. His undercover status would mean more to me than trying to bolster my ego because someone referred to me as “low level”. But that’s just me.
SUE SOPRANO..BOUGHT A PIANO..BUT WAS` TO STUPID TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY
SHE DRINKS THE SOUR CIDER..SOLD BY THE DECIDER..AND SITS ON THE TOILET ALL DAY..
Thanks for the links further proving Valerie Plame’s covert status, Larry. Of course it won’t make much difference to the delusional deniers of the right-wing neoconnery, but it does make them look increasingly ridiculous as they continue to contest her position as a covert CIA asset. As Mark Twain said, “No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live.” Today they are in the process of being ridiculed straight out of the political arena for sticking to just such tripe as ‘Valerie Plame wasn’t a covert CIA agent.’ To paraphrase another Twain quote: “God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the [neocons].”
BTW, it’s useful to recall what a hero Joe Wilson was prior to his trip to NIger:
The man stood up to Saddam Hussein and saved Americans during the first Gulf War; at the time, I believe the Bush Boy was cashing in his Harken Oil stock, which prompted an investigation by the SEC for insider trading. Just lucky for Junior that his father appointed the top members of the SEC and that later one of the investigators became his lawyer in Texas.
I’m wondering what the well-informed bunch here think of this item I ran across:
I’m just heartsick that this case was “dismissed.” No matter what laws Cheney et al break and duplicitious actions they take against the Plame-Wilsons, others and our Constitution, they get away with everything. So what do we do now Larry? What’s the next step?
Sue,
I’m smitten. And I wish I could take that post back. Perhaps the Bush ballwashing/scrotum scrubbing remark along with Billy Sue Bob could infer homophobia or a personal attack on you. Certainly not one of my better moments. For that I apologize. Non one can say I was upping the bar of exchange. Your remarks, which I consider cavalier about the outing of Valerie Plame/Wilson angered me.
The bw and ss was meant to denote a shameless apologist for this admin. and OK, crudely stated on my part. Bush apologist of the first rank, is frankly - well - played out. The Billy Sue Bob, perhaps in another setting may be funny, but not the expense of another human being.
I have no personal stake with Joe Wilson, I met him briefly and I liked him. I recommend his book highly. And I appreciate and I respect his service to our country. Obviously, like many of my fellow posters here, I am appalled and angered that this WH would deliberately and methodically out an intelligence officer who was covert and undercover for political purposes.
And believe it or not Sue, I would feel the same if your husband’s cover was blown for retaliatory purposes. Or for any other reason, if done deliberately.
And God forbid, if that happened to your spouse, I have a strong feeling that you would be angry and IMHO, justifiably so. Kudos to your husband, that is extremely dangerous work.
As for me being ‘taters’ - the original intent of that handle was for me not to take myself too damned seriously.
I’m sorry for being hurtful and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. You can call me Bobby if you’d like and hopefully we can have dialoguein the future.
Sincerely,
Bobby aka taters
PS- I guess saying taters could get someone slapped - and deservedly so if an ill mannered man at a bar said to a woman, “Hey honey, nice taters.”
Thank you Taters for your honesty, and the willingness to admit and apologize for your words. I myself have been guilty of the same, and offer those I have offended my apologizes as well. I too, have become so frustrated that sometimes words escape me, and I attack on the offensive, something I am loathe to do. That being said, Let honesty prevail and the Truth be seen by All. Peace.
Hi PrchrLady,
Thank you, ma’am. I’ve never seen you post anything beyond the pale, mean spirited or in bad taste. What a gorgeous day here in Michigan.
Judge John D. Bates, who dismissed the Plame suit, is quite a Republican piece of work: He was appointed to the DC District Court by George W. Bush in 2001; he dismissed the GAO suit to find out who was on Cheney’s secret ‘Energy Task Force’; prior to that he served two years under Ken Starr trying to impeach Clinton, and before that investigating the Whitewater waste of time and money. So, by the GOP’s standards, Plame received an impartial hearing. Which leads to this question:
Why haven’t judges appointed by Bush been recusing themselves from deciding cases involving Bush cronies? This is commonly done in state and local courts — imagine the uproar if a judge appointed by a governor decided a case in favor of that same governor’s interests — yet the federal bench seems immune to this time-honored tradition, at least since Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia, both of whom had family connected to the Bush campaign, voted Junior into office in December of 2000.
Mrs. Wilson’s lawyer said that they will appeal, and this time it will be before a panel of judges, not just one rightwing republican activist judge. So this story isn’t over by a long shot.
Also, I don’t believe Sue’s is the wife of an undercover cop. I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe much of what she writes.
Mudkitty says,
.
Well, let’s just say I’m not altogether convinced.I think a simple explantion from Sue will clear that all uponce and for all.
Sue -
I am curious how one can condone the outing of Valerie Wilson, who was undercover and covert by this WH and be married to an undercover cop. Would you be so kind as to explain this to us? And if you do condone Mrs. Wilson’s outing, I’m sure your husband takes a completely different view. How do you reconcile that with him? I anxiously await your response.
Still waiting Sue.
Sue..
Taters asked a Good Question..How would Your Under cover SIU/Drug Task Force Husband feel about that..?? Same Difference..
Valorie was a Covert Agent going after Bad Guys..developing Intel for a Government Agency..all similar to Law Enforcement work..just like the FBI or DEA..or your local Police..
how did your “husnand” feel about the Movie SCORPIO..with Stallone being an Under Cover Narc who was betrayed by some of his fellow Cops…who were CORRUPT..??
Same difference..Same Motives..
In fact its Ironic that some of the Perps who went after Valorie Plame are now sitting right on top of the Major Heroin Distribution
Place in the World..and shaking Hands and Making deals..and turning a Blind Eye to Crime syndicates and Drug Lords..because thats the Way that the Perps who Outted Covert Agent Valorie Plame and Exposed Her Task Force at the Central intelligence Agency..do BUSINESS..
How would your Undercover NARC Detective Husband feel about that..
or as Taters asked you..RECONCILE it..
Unless He’s Dirty too..
security officer job description…
Intriguing idea, but I don’t know if I believe you one hundred percent….
BigDog…
I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…