UPDATE: How is someone going to just plain lie on national TV? All over Fox (of course), commentators are claiming that Plame had posed for Vanity Fair and had hence outed herself as an agent, which had then gotten her in trouble with the CIA. One, that's factually untrue, since she was asked to be interviewed for the magazine 4 months after she had been outed by Novak, and two, it doesn't make logical sense – why would VF want to interview her unless she had already been made into a public figure by having been outed? It's like 1984 up in here.
Remember Mission Impossible? You know, with Tom Cruise hovering over laser beams and breaking into Langely to get his hands on the "NOC" (Non-Official Cover) lists? Remember when revealing the identities of our nation's undercover agents was a crime? Treason? Or at least bad, somehow?
Novak's column destroyed her position and classified status, she told the committee.
The disclosure also damaged U.S. intelligence efforts, she said. "If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency in providing needed intelligence would think twice."
Plame Wilson testified her work involved gathering intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.
To those who still consider themselves in support of the Bush administration or its ill-begotten war in Iraq, I really pose a question.
How do you dance around the fact that not only did the White House leak information that the KGB would have paid good money for in the old days, but it materially interfered in intelliegence-gathering related to the weapons of mass destruction?
I'm not being partisan here. If any other president's administration had outed its own CIA agents – come ON, its own undercover operatives! – what do you think would have happened? Should have happened?
Yet, there are those who maintain that one shouldn't criticize the President during times of war. Or the government. Well, call me silly, but I think that same government shouldn't out our own undercover CIA operatives during times of war. But I guess people like us are the real "traitors."
God – imagine if Clinton had done something like this, or had at least tacitly approved it, which Bush surely did, or at the very least, Cheney. It would have been a witch roast. But he did let an intern wet his willie, which is worth impeachment. The Republicans tried to have a Clinton roast, but that sausage turned out to be just a little too small to fry.
But somebody in the White House leaked a CIA agent's name, and by extension, blew the cover and/or credibility of anyone publicly associated with her – but even if that got up to Bush, somehow, I know those same Republicans would be looking the other way.
For somehow, for some people, Bush can do no wrong. Not on the economy (which was starting to tank before 9/11 distracted everyone from such mundane domestic affairs as the economic health of our country), or the war in Iraq (although the attacks came from a clearly defined terrorist group that did not have the full support of the regime hosting it in Afghanistan - hmm), nor even when outing our own CIA agents who are supposed to be protecting our country. Here's Valerie Plame Wilson's opening statements, which should have anyone concerned about the national security of the United States fuming:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the committee on oversight and government reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information.
I'm grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight. I served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials.
Today, I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq I worked in the counter proliferation division of the CIA -- still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.
I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs.
While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.
I loved my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer and I was dedicated to this work.
It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked.
But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States -- all of my training, all of the value of my years of service -- were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.
In the course of the trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, I was shocked by the evidence that emerged.
My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department.
All of them understood that I worked for the CIA and, having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer.
The CIA goes to great lengths to protect all of its employees, providing at significant taxpayers' expense, painstakingly devised and creative covers for its most sensitive staffers.
The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing.
But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents who, in turn, risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence.
Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, from my fellow covert officers to analysts to technical operations officers to even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.
We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies.
It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.
Furthermore, testimony in the criminal trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, who has now been convicted of serious crimes, indicates that my exposure arose from purely political motives.
Within the CIA it is essential that all intelligence be evaluated on the basis of its merits and actual credibility. National security depends upon it.
The tradecraft of intelligence is not a product of speculation.
I feel passionately as an intelligence professional about the creeping, insidious politicizing of our intelligence process.
All intelligence professionals are dedicated to the ideal that they would rather be fired on the spot than distort the facts to fit a political view -- any political view or any ideology.
As our intelligence agencies go through reorganizations and experience the painful aspects of change and our country faces profound challenges, injecting partisanship or ideology into the equation makes effective and accurate intelligence that much more difficult to develop.
Politics and ideology must be stripped completely from our intelligence services or the consequences will be even more severe than they have been and our country placed in even greater danger.
It is imperative for any president to be able to make decisions based on intelligence that is unbiased.
The Libby trial and the events leading to the Iraq war highlight the urgent need to restore the highest professional standards of intelligence collection and analysis and the protection of our officers and operations.
The Congress has a constitutional duty to defend our national security and that includes safeguarding our intelligence. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before this committee today and to assist in its important work. Thank you and I welcome any questions.
What was the once the stuff of fiction, as expressed in that suspenseful-yet-confusing film with Tom Cruise, with all the suspense hinging off of preventing the bad guys from getting the names of our agents – the Bush administration leaked as part of petty political revenge.
This is above what any politican, political pundit, or talk show hack says as part of their careers and what keeps them topical, in office, or on the lips of people huddled around the water cooler.
This is just plain old treason, in the strict, old-fashioned sense of the term, not in the way it tends to be employed as an ideological weapon, e.g. "That newspaper columnist is downright treasonous!"
This is about materially interfering with the ability of the United States to keep itself secure, as well as about getting people killed.
Fact is, once again, stranger than fiction.
