GOP strategist falsely claimed Plame appeared in Vanity Fair before being outed
In a discussion of the House committee testimony of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame on the March 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Republican strategist Edwina Rogers falsely claimed that Plame "had been in Vanity Fair before any of this came out, sitting in a Jaguar, and she did not get permission from the CIA, which is required." Rogers said that posing in such a photo "was unacceptable for the CIA." Rogers also claimed that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who went to Niger to discover whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium there, "had come back and didn't give the report to the CIA, but he turned it over in an op-ed to The New York Times." According to Rogers, because of these alleged transgressions, Plame "was already in the hot seat with the CIA." In fact, Plame's photos appeared in Vanity Fair several months after syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column disclosed her identity, and Wilson's July 6, 2003, Times op-ed appeared long after he delivered his report on Niger to the CIA. Host Neil Cavuto asked: "But she was in the hot seat -- she was in the hot seat after she was in the hot seat, right? I mean, after this stuff came out, right?" But he did not otherwise attempt to correct Rogers' timeline.
Plame and Wilson appeared in the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair, and the pictures in which she and Wilson appeared "in a convertible Jaguar" were taken on November 18, 2003 -- a full four months after Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity in his column.
Media Matters for America has previously noted that a March 8, 2002, report by a CIA agent, entered into evidence in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, explained Wilson's findings in detail more than a year before Wilson's op-ed was published in the Times. In his op-ed, Wilson asserted that "[i]n early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau."
Media Matters also previously noted that on the October 11, 2005, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, nationally syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham similarly suggested that White House senior adviser Karl Rove could not have outed Plame as an undercover agent because her identity was already known after she appeared "in Vanity Fair with her scarf and her sunglasses on."
From the March 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
ROGERS: Well, I think it's really all about the money. We're talking about a third-rate CIA agent who had a government salary, and now she's out -- she could have transferred somewhere else within the CIA. She didn't have to leave. Probably the CIA wanted her to leave because she had already been in the press without their permission, in Vanity Fair in a convertible Jaguar, which was unacceptable for the CIA. And she had sent her husband to Niger, and he had come back and didn't give the report to the CIA, but he turned it over in an op-ed to The New York Times. So she was already in the hot seat with the CIA, and so now she's all about the money.
CAVUTO: But she was in the hot seat -- she was in the hot seat after she was in the hot seat, right? I mean, after this stuff came out, right?
ROGERS: Well, no, actually before. It's come out that she was considered kind of a mediocre agent at best, and she had been in Vanity Fair before any of this came out, sitting in a Jaguar, and she did not get permission from the CIA, which is required.
CAVUTO: So what are you saying is really going on here?
ROGERS: Well, I think that basically, the bottom line is that the Democrats lost in the court of law, so now they're trying to have this issue in the court of public opinion with the hearings, and special prosecutor Fitzgerald still hasn't shut down his operation. He knew very early on that there was no underlying legal issue here, and he just went after Scooter Libby. They had some previous history together that was not real positive. And it's very, very rare for a prosecutor to continue a case where there is no underlying charge and just try to get them in, he-said, she-said perjury charges. Most unusual.
Of course this is on FOX and of course the GOP talking points are to smear Plame. They are all traitors.
i just saw valerie plame on cnn, and i heard some of her testimony on the radio today. she said that karl rove was definitely involved in releasing her identity, and that to this day he still carries a security clearance. cnn said they called the white house for a respnse abd they had "no comment". it was made very clear today by a statement read by henry waxman and approved by the cia, that plame was covert, that her outing did huge damage to her's and other spy networks, and, something i have stressed, it makes future contacts less likely to trust us. who would think that they can believe a promise of secrecy when the high ranking members of our own government out an agent with the full approval of the republican party and the right wing press.
" it was made very clear today by a statement read by henry waxman and approved by the cia, that plame was covert, that her outing did huge damage to her's and other spy networks, and, something i have stressed, it makes future contacts less likely to trust us. "
Then why are you NOT calling for the prosecution of Armitage? He's the one who leaked the information. He has admitted it, and it has been proven. WHY are you (generalized) claiming somebody different has to pay for this "crime"?? And, where's your proof of damage to the spy network? If it is "so clear" give us the proof. This whole thing is a bigger waste of time/money than the Clinton/Lewinski travesty. It's time to move on and just let Plame write a book about how terrible the US is. I'm sure it will be a big seller in some circles.
Hey AP,
Armitage no longer has security clearance, Libby, Fleischer also no longer have security clearance. Rove admittedly leaked her name. He should no longer have securtiy clearance either. End of Story.
This has already been explained to you several times, there are none so blind as those who will not stop regurgitating the talking points apparantly. There are more elements to the crime than simply the exposing of the identity of an agent. The person had to KNOW for instance they were covert AND intentionally expose them anyway. Armitage convinced Fitzgerald his exposure of her was inadvertant or at least that he couldnt prove otherwise.
Your second talking point is so ludicrous by the logic of it if someone robbed a bank on Monday no one could possibly be guilty of robbing it on Wednesday. Libby was the original source for exposing her to reporters his lawyer admitted as much.
As to damage well the spy network is STILL classified DUH, but there have been some talking about damage
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008726.php
On Hardball, MSNBC's David Shuster reported the following nugget about Valerie Plame on Monday:
psychic, your brain is on auto pilot. how do we know of the damage done to her spy network? could it possibly be the fact that it no longer exists, that she is no longer able to travel overseas and meet with the people in her network [providing they're still alive]? you don't put an ad in the middle east gazette and say undercover contacts wanted. you have to go out and spend years getting to know people and getting them to trust you that their connection to a cia agent will be confidential. there was also testimony yesterday by james knodell, director of the office of security at the white house. henry waxman: "do white house officials who know about the disclosure of classified information have an obligation to report what they know to you?" knodell: "yes sir." waxman: "are you aware if there's any investigation that ever took place in the white house about the release of this classified information?" knodell: "i am not." as for plame's book about "how terrible the u. s. is", the fact is that plame was a brave patriot who worked without official cover. that means had she been found out while working overseas, she could have ended up in prison for many years or worse. the fact that you have chosen to attack her and not the people like rove and libby who were giving her identity to multiple reporters, means that you are choosing to side with those who would undermine the security of this country.
just watched the faux news sunday gang, knew plame would come up. brit and kristol were spinning hard. they said that wilson had no qualifications to go to niger. he had made similar trips before and knew people in the area because he had been an ambassador. brit said there was no evidence that she was covert, either as a matter of fact or under the law. she was clearly covert, so said the cia, and so said the law. she had "served" overseas during the last five years, meeting the standard of law. brit also dismissed the fact that there was no white house investigation as promised by bush, because all that was being handled by the justice department. of course, that ignores the fact that the security oaths signed by rove and libby prevented them from even confirming information unless they knew it was declassified. the burden was on them to make sure of that. and you had libby going to judith miller of the new york times [she wanted to print the story] with plame's identity, and trying to conceal a white house connection to it. the violations of their security oaths, with info entrusted to them, did not require a legal finding to remove them from handling classified info. one of my favorite brit quotes was a few days ago, speaking of novak the traitor, when brit said that plame's identity "got into his column". as if, somehow it just appeared there without good old bob doing all the phone calls and confirmations and typing up the column. and then there was always that old favorite the nepotism charge. brit said it was "proven" by the "bipartisan" [read gop controlled] senate committee. but plame testified that the guy at the cia whose name they quoted as proof told her that the republicans twisted his words. finally, i have asked this question before and never, ever had an answer. this was an unpaid trip by wilson, a long plane ride to a dusty central african capital to sit around a second rate hotel for a few days. where was their gain in this? anyone?
Nothing this twit Rogers said is correct. According to Plame, didn't she say she's still working for the CIA at the hearing today? She's working on other assignments, but her career as a covert agent is over. So what the hell is Rogers talking about and is Cavuto that uninformed that he doesn't know any better or was the whole segment "scripted"? Things that make you go, huh?
Right-wing dicta:
1. Lie (easy enough, usually congenital).
2. Destroy anyone of value (even if on YOUR side - see McCain v Bush, 2000)
3. Resume lies.
Corporate Media Oligopoly Dicta:
1. Echo right-wing lies.
2. Should that stream run dry, invent additional lies for them.
3. Destroy anyone of value - merit cannot be allowed to survive, or it will afford an invidious comparator to the Corporate Media.
4. Pile the lies higher, amplify the echo.
You left out "Fill the airwaves with fluff about dead silicone blondes."
Of course, that voice is the sound of desperation working itself out.
What more evidence does ANYBODY need to say that FOX is a biased rightwing propaganda outfit? These are outright lies to push a rightwing agenda, accepting talking points LONG AGO shown to be flat out lies. FOX has NO SHAME
You have to have a conscience to feel shame....sociopaths don't have consciences.
Victoria Toensing was just on Hannity and Colmes. She was tryng to say that according to her "law" Valeria Plame Wilson was not covert. She said she didn't know how loosely they used the term but she was trying to deny she was covert. Alan Colmes then asked her point blank. "Before you stated that she was not covert, so were you wrong or are you saying Plame committed perjury today?" Toensing skated and skipped and even though Alan asked her about four times she would not answer. Apparently she feels now you are only covert if you fit under Toensings original law written years ago otherwise you are not. It was funny listening and watch her slime her way out of saying either she was wrong or Plame was a liar. She also brought up about how could she be covert if she went to dinners etc with her husband. Or how she could donate to the democrats under her phony cover company? She also tried to bring up her testimony of writing the email that Toensing is trying to say was written before Cheney asked about it. We often wonder does Toensing mean that if you are covert you are never allowed to go outside and see the light of day? Are you to remain hidden in your house or office and sneak between the two without being seen? It is wrong to go out with your husband? Then Hannity started on the Wilsons brought it on themselves by him writing the article. My husband and I were talking about how these people just ooze hatred out of every pore. What a shame you have to live your life that way.
I guess Hannity's point is that Wilson should have KNOWN the Bush administration was so venal they would trash national security to GET them so its THEIR fault that the Bush administration trashed national security in a fit of political pique. Yeah and its the fault of Banks they get robbed the should know better than to keep all that money.
I agree, Canadian. One of the common stereotypes that cons use against liberals is the lazy freeloader(vs. the industrious, hard-working Republican), and I'm starting to believe one aspect of it;
While most of the "liberal" people I know work their butts off at their job/family/community stuff, and some of the most "conservative" people I know either inherited something or do as little as possible to get by, I have to admire the Republican work ethic more and more lately.
Just in the sense that sticking with these stories in the face of all those facts, and continuing to explain and BS away the mountains of crap, that looks like some very hard work.
Nah, it's dead easy to keep lying when you own the venue and control access to the studio.
there has not been one credible person produced who has said they knew plame worked for the cia. she posed as an energy analyst for brewster jennings. that is what all their neighbors thought. the law clearly states that it covers anyone who "served" outside of the country for the last five years. plame testified yesterday that she took "secret missions" overseas during the last five years. she also said that the suggestion for wilson to go to niger was made by someone in her office, and that it was all initiated by a call from cheney's office. the "nepotism" charge is utter nonsense. what did they have to gain by him taking a long plane ride to niger? plame and wilson are true american heroes. novak, libby, cheney and rove are partisans who put an ideology before the country.
No, what she means is that "covert" has a different meaning to the CIA than it does under the law, which Toensing help write. Covert under the Intelligence Identities Act has certain criteria you have to meet. So you can be considered covert to the CIA but not covert according to the law.
It was interesting that Plame tried to paint herself as covert under the law, specifically referencing that she was like a retired general and had done work overseas in the past five years. However, he backpedaled when asked if the CIA considered her covert under the law.
LeatherHelmet:
"No, what she means is that "covert" has a different meaning to the CIA than it does under the law, which Toensing help write. Covert under the Intelligence Identities Act has certain criteria you have to meet. So you can be considered covert to the CIA but not covert according to the law."
Is it your position then, that it is acceptable for Government officials, with Top Secret clearances, not only to fail to protect the names of intelligence operatives, as they are oathbound to do, but to release them for public dissemination? The standard of integrity to which you will hold a conservative administration is merely the avoidance of prosecutable malfeasance? That, to anyone who actually cares about the security of this country, is obscene.
Let me guess. Was it a Republican who asked Plame to interpret the statute? Witnesses testify to facts, they do not interpret the law, particularly when they have no legal training. Plame was right to decline to give a legal opinion. It does not discredit the rest of her testimony at all.
Toensing on the other hand, completely blurred the distinction between witness and lawyer, and looked like an unprofessional hack in doing it. It is important to note that Toensing's interpretation of "her act" is not widely shared except by other Republican partisans. Despite a bizarre AP article that appeared today, it has not been adopted publicaly by Fitzgerald, or anyone else who actually knows the facts, including classified facts, of the Plame case. Toensing's long well documented career as a GOP operative on cable news talk programs does not stand her in good stead here either.
Did she commit perjury?
Here are some basic questions to all who think, "republicans like Victoria keep telling me that Valerie Wilson was NOT covert under the statute, what about that>?"
If the CIA Director said she was covert (and he DID), what else is there to know?? What other questions need to be asked?? Thats right NONE. Ohh a statute? You mean a narrow legal definition, DOES THAT MATTER? If she is covert according to the CIA but not according to the statute, do you think there might be a problem with the statute?? WHICH ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT?
A fundamental question... how does Victoria know for a fact that Valerie is NOT covert under the statute? I she privy to classified information from the CIA, or is she just some lawyer with a political agenda? I think you know the answer.
For the record I have copied the actual statute for all to see.
6 50 U.S.C. § 426(4) defines “covert agent” to mean:(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present orretired member of the armed forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classifiedinformation, and(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five yearsserved outside the United States; or(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States isclassified information, and—(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informantor source of operational assistance to, and intelligence agency, or(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, theforeign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of theFederal Bureau of Investigation; or(C) an individual, other than aUnited States citizen,whose past or present intelligencerelationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present orformer agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistanceto, an intelligence agency.
Based on all evidence presented at the Libby trail, her testimony and this is key... general Hayden's declaration, it is pretty clear that she was covert under the statute at the time of the leaking.
So basically, the FACTS point to her being covert, there is no argument. If you believe what the republican operatives and conservative media are saying then either your a dittohead and you can't think for yourself OR CIA Director General Hayden is a liar and Valorie Wilson lied under oath.
plame clearly is covered under [a]. and some of the right wingers want to argue about the meaning of "serving", but reading the whole statute shows that serving does not necessarily mean residing. she did serve overseas in the previous 5 years. toensing likes to portray herself as such an expert on the law, but she has tried to dismiss libby's perjury and obstruction as not worthy of pursuing because there were no other indictments. but those are clearly crimes in themselves.
It will never end.
How can they night after night continue to not tell the truth. They allow incorrect information to out with NO thought for the facts and allow their guest to do the same.
I'm all for freedom of the press but the Democratic party should agree not appear on Fox since they make up their stories. It would hopefully start the end for Fox and all those who love it.
What? And not make an outreach to the orc demographic? Pollsters have shown that there's votes and donations in that thar slimepit! Got to get them orc votes, got to help bomb Iran and destroy the constitution and move farther to the right. The corporate money isn't going into the party coffers if the Democrats go hang with the real liberals.
Just remember who actually owns the Republicans and Democrats....it's not us.
God, I get annoyed when someone such as Edwina Rogers, “Republican Strategist,” goes on the air and mucks up the facts as bad as she did on Your World with Neal Cavuto. With guests like her spouting misinformation, Fox News just invites attacks from the Left. All she did was provide Democrats with ammunition.
As for Victoria Toensing — she continues to focus on whether or not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or other laws were violated when Valerie Plame Wilson was outed. (I am now convinced that “outed” is the correct word.) Her point has only minor significance unless criminal charges — or impeachment attempts — ensue.
It’s bad enough when Conservatives or Republicans posting comments come across as Ms O’Blivious, but it’s far, far worse when they expose their ignorance (stupidity in some cases) in the national media.
I'm with you, Mac.
I also loved the sputtering bile of "third rate agent." Is dear Edwina hinting that she has sources at the agency who've disparaged Valerie Plame' work? Perhaps she's hinting that, because it's common knowledge that V. P. was third rate, she couldn't have been covert? Or, perhaps Edwina (any relation to Ed?) is just blowing it out her zaftig butt.
This would all be delicious fun were it not for the context. That context is that these water carriers are trying to prolong the long discredited coverup of lies (or ideological blindness) that have caused, and continue to cause, tens of thousands of lives, untold misery, and the destruction of American credibility around the world.
Even in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary, the right-wing spin machine continues the avalanche of lies. Even better was Toensing parsing the word "covert". (Let's all remember the big stink about what "is" is).
While there may not have been a "statutory" crime in outing her name given the expanded powers of the president, it most certainly was a political crime as well as an ethical crime that should be answered for in some manner.
PLAME [under oath]: "I was covert."
LEATHERHELMET: "However, he[sic] backpedaled when asked if the CIA considered her covert under the law."
ED Hill - is that you?
"In The Ball Park" Truths
"That's close enough" is the best way to describe the way to coin the Republican talking points. Sadly, the Republicans will take the short cut to gain a political "quick fix" anytime they are faced with being caught in a lie. Added to this sick form of defense, the general misconception that the American people are stupid, and you have a Party dangerously moving into this century. When it comes down to talking points, you can bet the Republicans will have theirs ready to go before the "clock strikes twelve." These days CSPAN is becoming very conservative in their program structure, framing the defensive political responses, and falsely representative of the Republican popularity with the American people. I actually long for one show, similar to Bill Maher, which is reflective of who has the true support of the American people. I really feel the Right-wing media tries too hard to lend the impression the country is divided down the middle. It’s not and they know it. This consistent didactic — over and over again — approach lead by the Fox news, half of CNN, and three quarters of MSNBC is a subtle form of brainwashing. Somewhere along the line, the Democrats will need to take back our political system and restore the checks and balances before we lose too much of our core functionality. If you have not noticed we seem to be losing more than the right to kill Iraqi people. For the first time in American history, we may run the risk of becoming the "bad" guy in the world in the same way, yes you know it's coming, Hitler did in the 1930’s and 1940’s. We have already killed well over 500,000 people on a war we generated. Stop the war now.Joseph
fox. what a joke. sadly, it is not unusual for their "commentary" to consist entirely of their own poor imaginations.
anyone watching this can see that ms. plame-wilson is guilty only of loving her country and puting her life on the line as a covert agent to the betterment of all of us. shame on those who outed her and then would play games about covert or not. shame on those who would engage in defending the hacks, frauds and phonies in the administration and media making this out to be less than it is....a national security disaster that cannot occur again. i caught toensing on c-span friday and i can tell you that rep's watson, cummings and vanhollen took her apart, exposing her as the shill she gets paid to be. one thing that keeps on resonating with me is what a difference an election makes. here's hoping "08 brings about a democrat in the white house, a 61-37-2 majority in the senate, and a 290-145 majority in the house. hopefully the repub mantra of ideology over national interest ends there, and forever.
NO WONDER at LEAST 30% of Fox News viewers thought that WMDs were found in Iraq and that there were links between Al Qaida and Saddam. Blatant lies, screwy timelines, and omitted key facts.