Plame is a creature of DC and the CIA. She would NEVER leak controversial information about a federal prosecutor and a sitting congressman without checking it out and making sure it would not come back to bite her. That kind of mentality has been drilled into her by her many years at the CIA. Therefore the call was not a tip. It was permission to leak the media news that Waxman, with Fitzgerald’s help, is going to re-open the Plame Game in Congress. Which is might convenient timing with the NIE on Iran coming out – and could help divert attention from the authors and herself! How convenient! – end addendum

Looks like I may have been onto something when I noted the NIE authors had links to Valerie Plame.

The problem with the modern media age is the choreography required to put on a major media event takes so much time and effort that well timed media events around breaking news – like the latest NIE on Iran – become quickly suspect as part of the choreography. They staging of political debate is becoming quite apparent on 2008, with CNN’s facade ripped apart with the GOP debate.

Let’s assume a famous ex-CIA agent – one woefully wrong by the President when she was exposed by her big mouthed husband – wanted to run for elected office? She would give speeches of course to test the waters. But how is it one of these speeches would be coincidentally scheduled for perfect timing with the release of an NIE by her old coworkers?

Valerie Plame Wilson, whose cover as a covert CIA agent was famously blown by top Bush administration officials, told a Brown University audience last night she is pleased that the U.S. intelligence community has released an assessment concluding that Iran halted its covert nuclear weapons campaign in 2003.

“I’m pleased that they have some gumption and have pushed back” against the Bush administration, which has often pointed to Iraq as a rouge nation that is developing a nuclear arsenal, Plame told a packed house on campus last night .

While the new intelligence report appears likely to make President Bush’s “case for war somewhat more problematic,” Plame said, his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a boon to Iran’s government.

“We have done grave damage with our policies in Iraq,” said Plame. “We’ve taken care of Iran’s enemies — the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.”

Amazing how Plame is giving a speech only days after her old coworkers in the IC release the controversial NIE. In addition, Plame’s speech was a staged media event announcing collusion between a Federal Prosecutor (Fitzgerald) and a Liberal Congressman (Henry Waxman) to hand over FBI investigative files so the Liberal Congressman can use them to conduct witch hunts in Congress and – surprise, surprise – effect the 2008 elections.

After her hour-long speech and question-and-answer session, Plame dropped one bombshell almost casually.

She said a lawyer had called her just before her talk began and told her that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald had agreed to turn his transcripts of interviews with Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over to U. S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who is known for his relish for investigating wrongdoing by Republicans.

Too casually for me. She should have been an actress (oops, I forgot – she was one for the CIA).

Let’s look at the big picture to set some context. al-Qaeda is on the ropes in Iraq and are acting now out of sheer desperation. They have gone to a scorched Earth policy in order to avoid an humiliating defeat. The Democrats tied their future to al-Qaeda succeeding in Iraq, in the hopes they would deal a defeating blow to Bush and the GOP. The problem is now the Liberal Dems are also desperate to avoid a humiliating political defeat. It appears they may be willing to go well beyond the pale to salvage themselves from their own poor judgments on Iraq. And that could not only be political suicide for lib-dems, but really injure America and its institutions. Are we on the verge of the bloodiest political battles this nation has seen since the civil war? Sadly we may be.

It seems the NIE was NOT a consensus view of the US Intelligence Community but a hack job by some folks with possible political aspirations (wonder what CNN debate these folks will turn up in):

A highly controversial, 150 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear programs was coordinated and written by former State Department political and intelligence analysts — not by more seasoned members of the U.S. intelligence community, Newsmax has learned.

Its most dramatic conclusion — that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure — is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

H/T Reader Kathie. No NIE Key Judgments would EVER be based on a single source that had not been vetted. Even the Israelis believe Iran has restarted their weapons program. Is someone trying to pull a Curveball on the US again? I mean this sounds like your classical “slam dunk” – doesn’t it? Well there are political animals sprinkled all through the Federal Government – and this one just went too far:

The National Intelligence Council, which produced the NIE, is chaired by Thomas Fingar, “a State Department intelligence analyst with no known overseas experience who briefly headed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research,” I wrote in my book “Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender.” [Editor's Note: Get "Shadow Warriors" free — go here now.]

Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.

As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues, as revealed in “Shadow Warriors.”

In March 2007, Fingar fired his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez.

Yeah, like there is no bond between Chavez and Castro. I am looking into the names of the folks behind this NIE. They look to be targets of the left most of the time, but I did find some interesting points. It seems Fingar is more of an Academic than one would suspect:

Six months later, Director George Tenet delivered the CIA’s conclusion in testimony before the Senate: Contrary to its own earlier analysis, the CIA now believed that North Korea would test an intercontinental missile in the “near future.” In response to this new threat, the Clinton administration earmarked $6.6 billion over five years to develop a missile-defense system.

Over at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), analysts argued that the North Koreans were much farther off than the CIA believed. North Korea could potentially threaten the United States within a decade “only if it abandons its current moratorium on long-range missile flight testing,” Tom Fingar, then-acting principal deputy assistant secretary of INR, testified before Congress in February 2001. Although the White House and Congress accepted the CIA’s analysis, INR ultimately proved to be correct. In the five years since Tenet’s testimony, North Korea has yet to test an intercontinental ballistic missile.

…

Second, INR gets a different kind of analyst. The CIA, under the gun to staff up mightily after its ranks were thinned by budget cuts in the 1970s and 1990s, tends to recruit kids right out of college and train them in their new “specialties.” (All new CIA hires must be under 35 years of age, although that requirement is occasionally waived.) And while the CIA’s young analysts occasionally travel to their countries of responsibility and bone up by reading at their desk, they have little first-hand experience of their regions. INR couldn’t be more different. Among the civil servants who make up two-thirds of its staff are many scholars lured out of the academy who come with years of knowledge. Fingar is one of them: He spent a decade-and-a-half as a scholar at Stanford’s U.S.-China relations program, speaks fluent Mandarin, and has traveled widely in China. The other third of INR’s staff are Foreign Service officers rotating through who usually have spent several diplomatic tours in the country or region they are focusing on at INR, and who thus have both a reservoir of knowledge about its personalities and history, and a deep well of personal contacts.

Whoever wrote this really had it wrong on North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile tests – they have been trying. Just not succeeding. But one thing is clear, Fingar is a hang-on from the Clinton days. And everyone should recognize the initials INR from the Plame Games.

So what about Kenneth Brill? Well, he also has some interesting intersections with Plame and Wilson – he worked with Joe Wilson at State. More than that he claimed in 2005 that Iran has lied to fit the facts on its nuclear weapons programs:

Following disclosures of previously undeclared nuclear activities, in March 2004, Brill said, “The Iranians change their stories to fit the facts.” He added, “I think it’s striking that the more the agency learns, the more the Iranians have to change their stories,” and he predicted the IAEA would have to deal with Iran “for many years to come.”

Needless to say he too is a Clinton holdover. My guess is we will discover these folks linked to the last big INR/CIA intel leak – the Wilson claim that Bush and Cheney used forged documents to go into Iraq. The timing is way too similar.

Update: More here on Brill and Fingar and their opposition to Bush:

DNI Negroponte is appointing Kenneth C. Brill, a frequent antagonist of Bush administration hardliners on policies toward North Korean and Iraq, to the new post of director of the National Counterproliferation Center, an Executive Level II job that outranks undersecretaries, the Washington Post reported.

Is the timing of these old Clinton hands coming out with this stuff tied to the coming election? Hmm,….

Update: From this tidbit I would bet Fingar and Plame crossed paths many times:

Thomas Fingar, like a number of members of John Negroponte’s inner circle, hails from the State Department. He led the department’s intelligence unit, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which raised some of the strongest objections to the determination by the CIA and others that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons rather than enhancing its conventional arsenal. The twist of fate in Fingar’s new job will not be lost on intelligence observers.

Recall Plame was heading up the entire Intelligence Community’s Joint Task Force on Iraq and WMDs at the time I believe Fingar was at INR. If Fingar was one of those few, like Plame, claiming Iraq was NOT attempting to acquire nuclear weapons then they would become fast allies in the small IC world. These two people rubbed shoulders – trust me. It is no secret the INR Fingar led played such a central role in Wilson’s trip as well. Coincidence? And now we come back to the big mystery of the Wilson trip to Niger – why DID the IC debrief Joe Wilson at his house with Valerie when he came back from Niger? Why not bring him in? And who were the two INR/CIA folks at the debriefing (and possibly provided corroboration to the Kristof pieces when Joe was still anonymous)?

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.

H/T Drudge. I actually am disappointed. I felty the civil trial would allow Libby and those who are dying to expose the lies of Joe and Valerie Wilson a wonderful opportunity. But it seems even the judge couldn’t find a reason for this suit.

More here:

The judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, and said he wouldn’t express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Too right. The Federal courts is not place to sort out Kerry’s proganda lies his campaign fed to a compliant media. Oh well. End of the Plame Game.

President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

This is what I backed as the proper solution a while ago. Libby was tried by an abusive prosecutor out for fame and name who knew Libby had nothing to do with the exposure of Valerie Plame’s identity to the media, but all the same caught Libby in misrecollections of events.

One misrecollection, with Tim Russert, was where Libby recalled DISCUSSING Plame with Russert, but Russert and Fitzgerald claimed this NON-EXPOSURE of Plame’s identity was perjury in covering up for other times Libby also did not expose Plame’s identity. Only in the warped world of DC can someone be tried for perjury for wrongfully admitting to have had the conversation which would be a crime and the prosecutor claiming no such discussion happened.

And for these non-events Fitzgerald convinced a judge, in dire need of a lesson in the law, to sentence Libby to the crime he was not convicted of! Bush is right to let this whacked out judgement stand (because it is a product of our courts, just like the OJ verdict) and simply apply some justice to the sentence. Good decision on the President’s part. At least he did not do what Clinton did which was pardon drug dealers and tax evaders.

And thus ends another chapter in the lame Plame game. Next up, the Wilson’s go to civil court where all their efforts to plant a political story in the DC press to help Kerry’s Presidential aspirations come out.

Update: Bush’s statement on the commutation:

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

…

Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

…

In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The far right might howl in rage because Bush will not do “a Clinton” and just wipe the slate clean, but Bush has proven to be above partisanship and an American first. Good decision and a well expressed rationale for the decision.

Update: I said the far right would not be satisfied and they are beginning to moan. They far right has showed its impatient, bow-to-us-alone, side so much they do not feel the need to hide their arrogance any longer. Don’t forget, this Plame mess was all Bush’s fault!

I agree with what Clarice Feldman and the folks over at Powerline said regarding the idea posed today in the Washington Post that Scooter Libby should have his jail time commuted and his fine retained (possibly reduced). The idea is sound because a jury decided there was an infraction of the law. It was not a major one and it was not the one Fitzgerald pretends it to be. Fitzgerald KNEW who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media and it was not Scooter Libby.

In fact Libby was charged with claiming he talked about Plame with Russert and Fitzgerald stated, in the indictment, that was perjury. There was no leak to Russert. Only in the warped and desperate mind of Firtz-Magoo could someone claiming to have discussed the supposedly forbidden topic of Valerie Plame (CIA Employee) be charged with perjury for lying and NOT discussing said forbidden subject. The fact judge Walton could not see the pathetic irony and injustice in this aspect of the case and went ahead and sentenced Libby as if he DID leak to Russert shows why Walton is the poster child for bad judges.

Here we have the crux of the excessive punishment. Scooter said he did the bad and discussed Plame with Russert. Fitz and Russert and the jury so no you did not Scooter. You lied and did so deliberately. Fitz then says he should be sentenced as if he had leaked the name. Judith Miller can’t remember and what’s-his-name at Newsweek basically agreed with Libby on words, each just interpreted the meanings differently.

But we need to uphold our legal process and so commuting the sentence (and probably reducibng the fine by at least a 3rd for NOT leaking to Russert – as the prosecutor proved, and which makes Libby INNOCENT of the IIP charges) is the right decision. I would wait a bit though, and see if there is some sanity left in the court system. The harsh sentence tells me this case should be thrown out an retried, though for the life of me I cannot think of a legal hook to hang that on. But if it was, I think the second time around Libby would get a different result.

However, there is something to be said for closing this mess up once and for all.

My prediction is no jail time. If there is jail time, it will be suspended until appeals are processed. Libby is a lawyer and a selfless patriot who worked to protect this nation from harm. Those things count. And it can easily be said Joe Wilson’s lies about the Niger Forgeries (the basis of all his stories back then) and his lies about the intelligence he brought back, his exposure of people and processes (including his wife) are the acts of someone out to harm the government. Will Walton see this? Let’s just say I have to have faith our legal system is not totally broken. Fitzgerald will NOT be allowed to punish Libby for a crime he was not convicted of – unless Walton wants to give Libby a whole new trial since this one will be tossed out quickly if that happens. And Fitzgerald – he will be facing some challenges once this is ended. His day of reckoning is still coming.

A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That “doesn’t square” with Plame’s March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband’s name, Bond told USA TODAY.

Here are Plame’s three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:

•She told the CIA’s inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn’t remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney’s office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, “Well, why don’t we send Joe?” Plame told the committee.

Corruption of the process will destroy the institutions and all associated with them. Letting lies stand openly taints everyone involved, just as it would any witness to a crime – with the power to do something – who stands by and lets it happen. Plame’s variations are as serious and more obvious than Libby’s bizarre recollections. Remember Libby actually testified talking about Plame to Russert, making the case he DID leak about Plame, but Russert denied he was leaked to – making the entire incident irrelevant to the IIPA charges! Only Fitz-Magoo would charge someone with not testifying he was innocent of the leak, instead of claiming he did talk to the media and possibly guilty of the leak. I think this has to be the first time in history someone perjured themselves for not claiming their innocence to the charge being investigated.

But I digress. Lying under oath to committees trying to understand the intel leading up to the Iraq invasion is just as problematic – if not more – than covering up who leaked Plame’s name to the media (which we know WAS NOT Libby). Plame is in some trouble here. And the statute of limitations will not help her out here. She has no immunity for false testimony to Congress. My gut tells me if there is another power switch in 2008 (and right now I would bet there would be) Wilson and Plame will find themselves on the wrong side of witness table. Of course, their credibility will be tested in any civil case as well – so we may get some answers much sooner than 2009.

he Government’s calculations were just filed. They are not (as I thought, therefore I deleted a paragraph above so speculating) that they are asking for an enhancement for abuse of special trust. Surprisingly, to me, over the contrary finding of the Probation Department, they are asking the Court to apply the guideline for the IIPA and Espionage Act, under the theory that cross-referencing guidelines is permitted because the investigation in which Libby lied and obstructed justice pertained to those offenses, even though no one was charged. I totally disagree with that.

Geez, even the liberals are now finally concerned Fitzgerald is running afoul of our laws. In my mind Fitzgerald just jumped the shark and demonstrated once and for all his warped, biases towards Libby. Clearly Armitage leaked Plame’s name to the press. Libby was allowed to know Plame’s name and there was only one vague possible discussion of Plame with one reporter. Armitage blabbed it at least twice to the media. Fitzgerald has quite a few screws lose if he thinks he can sentence someone for a crime he KNOWS they did not commit on the theory he and he alone is omnipotent and knows deep down what Libby was up to (i.e., can read his heart and mind). It is long past time to investigate Fitzgerald and apply the same lose standards of evidence to his motives and coordination with Comey, et al. Much more on the sentencing memo here at Just One Minute.

Addendum: What Fitzgerald claims in the sentencing documents versus what he did or what was determined are completely at odds (no surprise there, since this is a witch hunt, not a legal proceeding). Here is a sample:

It was apparent from early in the investigation that classified information relating to
a covert intelligence agent had been disclosed without authorization. Also early in the
investigation, investigators learned the identities of three officials – Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage, Senior Adviser to the President Karl Rove, and Mr. Libby, the Vice-
President’s Chief of Staff – who had disclosed information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment to reporters. What was not apparent, however, were the answers to a series of
questions central to whether criminal charges arising from the unauthorized disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s identity as an intelligence agent were both viable and appropriate. These questions
included the following:

• Were Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby the only government officials
to disclose information about Ms. Plame’s CIA employment to reporters?
• Was each particular disclosure by the government officials to journalists
deliberate, reckless or inadvertent?
• How did those government officials learn about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment?
• What did those government officials know about the classified nature of Ms.
Wilson’s employment?
• Precisely what information regarding Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment did
government officials disclose to reporters, and to how many reporters?
• Were the disclosures made as part of a concerted effort to disclose this
information? and
• Did other government officials direct or approve these disclosures?

Note how Fitzgerald skates RIGHT BY the whole issue of what law was broken (if any)? Was classified information released? Was Plame’s CIA job and open secret (as we all suspect it was)? Fitzgerald seems to go right past the entire question of whether the disclosure fell under the IIPA laws (if didn’t). Where is the question “Did Wilson and Plame disclose Ms Plame’s CIA connections to reporters to bolster Wilson’s leaks? ” Where is the question “Did Joe Wilson leak classified information when recalling (incorrectly) his work for the CIA and his tea sipping in Niger”? Of course Wilson exposed methods, contacts and results of intelligence activities – yet Fitzgerald misses all this classified information being leaked and focuses in on Plame’s well known role in the IC and on Capitol Hill. I was going to waste my time on Fitzgerald’s bizarre reflections of his biases (and I may still), but this case has gone from ‘poor’ to ‘abymsal’ with Fitzgerald trying to sentence someone for a crime they have never been found guilty of.

The judge who presided over the trial of vice presidential aide Lewis Libby has been appointed to the secret court that oversees U.S. intelligence wiretaps.
Reggie Walton, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts effective May 19.

This will make sentencing in the Libby case interesting. I wonder of Fitz-Magoo will ask the judge to recuse himself. I am confident a couple of weeks seeing the possible threats we face on a daily basis will sober up the judge and give him plenty of understanding to Libby’s situation regarding priorities (terrorism vs. Joe Wilson’s lies to the media for the Kerry campaign).

I mean she is up there saying Richard Armitage was politically motivated to leak her identity to the media as retribution against Joe (OK, she is saying the administration did, but we all know who leaked her name!). Some newspapers seem to enjoy being lied to, they find it admirable. At least that is all I can figure when they do not call Plame on her inconsistencies under oath.

In Wilson’s original partisan hit pieces, funneled anonmously through a pliant liberal media, he claimed the President had knowingly used forged documents to make his case to invade Iraq. This was the core of the Wilson claim – forged documents meant Bush lied and people died. That was in May-July of 2003. But by July 7 of 2004 Joe Wilson had to recant, under oath, the claim about the forged documents being the smoking gun he had bunked in his infamous last trip to Niger. Here is the key findings of that report:

When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger’s uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. …

…

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

Wilson claimed, under oath, that he had no personal detailed knowledge of the Niger Forgeries, only what was known from reporting after March 2003. But the fact is he knew a lot, details that were not common knowledge. And in fact he knew who’s names should have been on the Niger Forgeries because he knew the dates of the Niger Forgeries. The dates coincide with the brief military rule in Niger from April 1999 to around January 2000, the period which Wilson talks about a lot in his UVA speech in the fall of 2003. Given the names of people and the government in power itself would only be valid for a period of less than a year means Wilson had classified level knowledge of the documents. But he also knew WHEN the documents were at the CIA! Note this section of the UVA speech:

There were two other reports that were done at the same time as mine. One was the Ambassadors on the scene report and one was a report made by a fourth star marine corps general who made his way down to Niger and had taken a look at it. All three of us had concluded the same thing. It did not happen. We have information to the contrary. It cannot be authentic unless it contains three signatures. None of which were on those documents. All those reports were in the US Government files and yet eight months later, the President of the United States, in the most important speech of his administration, in a speech to the world, to the US Congress, and to the American people detailing why we had to go to war with Iraq, contains sixteen words which were on the surface of it, a lie.

The State Of The Union speech in 2003 was on January 28th. So if you go back eight months you end up in May/June of 2002 (depending on how you count) – not February of 2002 when Wilson made his infamous trip to Niger. So clearly Wilson KNEW that the forgeries where not in the hands of the US when he went to Niger in 2002, at least when he spoke at UVA in October 2003. He knew he was lying through his teeth. And therefore he lied under oath to the Senate Committee when he testified about not knowing. He knew exactly when the documents were in the CIA’s hands because May/June 2002 is about the time word started spreading about the forged documents.

And there is one final piece to the puzzle. It seems (and we won’t know until the transcript comes out) that the VP’s interest in Niger actually came from the report of Wilson’s 1999 visit to Niger! It was Wison’s 1999 Niger report that kicked off the VP’s interest, not the Niger Forgeries. So let’s pull this all together.

If the 2002 trip was kicked off because Wilson reported in 1999 that Iraq had made overtures to Niger then Wilson was being sent to Iraq to rebuke is own earlier reporting. And clearly there is little need to go to Niger to detail your previous report’s contents. And when Wilson claimed in his early media attacks that this was all about forged documents the administration deliberately used to support the invasion of Iraq he knew too much about those same documents – including the fact they referred to the very brief set of months when the military was in charge and what were the few valid names for that period. And Wilson knew that the US did not have the forged documents in hand when he went to Niger because he himself placed the documents in US custody 3 months after his trip in October 2003. The wild speculation would be he went to Niger in Fb 2002 to get the forgeries on the street, to weaken his own 1999 report.

Wilson, whatever his gambit, has one fallacy. He weaves detailed and conflicting fictions which show him to be lying whenever his lips are moving. Someone should bring this man up on charges for lying to the Senate under oath. Because now we have him in his own words admitting he did know a lot more about those forged documents than was possible from the reporting out in March 2003.

Joe Wilson is/was a deep cover operative. The indications are everywhere, and in so many places I will not even try to link to all the material that has been published on each aspect of Joe Wilson’s life that hint this may be true. I am sure the Plamiac experts here and elsewhere will correct anything I use to support my theory. But it makes some sense and puts a lot of things into a different, more coherent perspective.

First, Joe Wilson worked in the Baghdad bureau of the State Department and was the one who ‘stayed behind’ when the first Gulf War broke out. His role as Chief of Station could be a dual one, with an intelligence side as a covert agent. It would make sense why he received so many accolades for his stint there – he could have been a lead CIA coordinator in country.

Second, when Wilson and Plame met at a party at the Turkish Embassy in 1997, it is reported she blurted out she worked at the CIA early on in their encounters (under 48 hours). Plame doesn’t seem to be the type, after being a NOC, to simply blurt that out. But Wilson is gifted in saying things he shouldn’t at times (like noting Val’s job at Brewster and Jennings on a political donation, but more on that in a second). So it is not a big shock if the conversation was more along the lines “I work at the CIA too” and Wilson was trying to be too cute by half. Valerie had just come back from Greece because it was feared her cover had been blown by Aldrich Ames, so I doubt she would tell just anyone where she worked. In fact, there has been speculation that Marc Grossman, who seems to have known them both, may have helped get the two together. The intelligence world is a very small clique, which is why Grossman could get a request answered in a day when it came time to find out who sent Wilson to Niger (though I still suspect he knows). So maybe she knew about his work and was just letting him now she was from the same clothe.

Third, there is the first hand knowledge of CIA cover Brewster and Jennings by Wilson. Should he have known about Val’s cover? I am not sure, but some cover story had to be established. All I know is it seems he was the one who noted it on campaign donation records. As I noted way back here in this post it appears Wilson donated too much money initially to the Gore campaign, well over the hard money limit, and had to redistribute the money between him and Valerie so it looked like two donations. But why use the CIA cover company after years of supposedly keeping it secret? Well, what if B&J was a well known cover company that was a code word Congress and others in the Federal Government used to refer to black ops work? Maybe Wilson was trying to send a signal to someone on the Gore campaign? Who knows. Granted, this is a weak connection, but the B&J mystery has always been what a lame cover it is, which makes it perfect as a code phrase for top government officials to use to hint at a group of people and their intel work.

Fourth, Wilson’s many trips to Niger at key, critical points and on jobs that would not be in the hands of just anyone. His first trip, in Wilson’s own words was to turn a military coup detat, inside a country that’s prime product was a nuclear power source, towards a democratic government. And this was in a country that basically was a French protectorate. So why send the CIA in? Probably because the French could not have a US official openly working for them or some other such nonsense. But Wilson did play a large role in this 1999 effort (which happened to occur right after his donation to the Gore campaign). At least that is what Wilson claims. My knowkedge of the government is they DO NOT outsource these kinds of responsibilities to private individuals – probably because legally they cannot. Agents of the government have certain authorities which cannot be conveyed on private individuals. It makes more sense Wilson, as an agent, was operating as a US official under cover.

And there is the claim that this entire news media fiasco was an attempt to send a signal to Joe Wilson himself. Now that is still a silly claim, but if Wilson was a covert agent then the news getting out his wife worked at the CIA COULD have been seen by Wilson as a warning of what would be coming his way. He may have actually felt his career was being threatened if he was the one who was now the covert agent.

And I cannot help and wonder about why Wilson was not debriefed at the CIA but was instead dedbriefed at his home with Valerie present. It is a well known fact that covert agents avoid Langley like the plague, so that would fit into the overall theory. Especially AFTER the trip to Niger. To avoid any potential connection to the CIA and Wilson’s trip the debriefing would best be done outside a known CIA facility.

And Wilson being a CIA agent may be why the complaint from the CIA was dismissed three times by Justice Agent Wilson claiming he was the target of a political hit by the outing of his wife would show a paranoia of thinking and could have easily been seen as the joke it was by many in the CIA and Justice. But if Wilson was a CIA operative, now outside the government (completely plausible), then a complaint noting that fact would carry sufficient minimal weight requiring an invesitgation, and it would makes sense why the complaint is still classified.

Wild speculation? Of course. But a lot of strange things surrounding this topic make a lot more sense if Wilson was also a CIA operative. His history shows he easily could have been. Three trips to Niger in 4 years discussing key topics with the government’s top leaders is plenty strong evidence itself, but there are many other indicators, as I tried to point out. And that may be why Wilson has been able to weather this storm as well as he has. A bumbling, exaggerating, second-rate diplomat carries little clout in DC. But a field agent who worked closely with the core of two administrations on such hot topics as Iraq and the coup in Niger would carry a lot of weight in DC. And to play and survive DC politics you need some power or prestige to stay in the game this long.

So was Wilson a CIA undercover operative who took the outing of his CIA wife’s name as a threat he was soon to be outed? Read back through some of his comments and it seems highly plausible (from the UVA speach linked above):

The breach of trust and the people at the agency will tell you this, is between those who risk their lives to get the information necessary for us to do the sorts of analysis that Pat did in his distinguished career and do the sort of consuming of product I did during my less than stellar career to quote Casper Weinberger.

They really need to have their identities and covers protected. Otherwise, we will not be able to recruit people to do that job. So, I would encourage everywhere I go, the President and the senior officials in the Administration to get serious about this. Not necessarily because my wife is in danger or I am in danger, but because the national security of our country is compromised by this.

Emphasis mine. When I first read this I thought Wilson was just grandstanding when he tried to make it out he was ‘in danger’ too. But now I think he was simply saying he, spy, and his wife, spy, were not the issue or in danger. Read the whole article and how Wilson discusses his many decades of work in Niger, both in and out of Government for more possible hints to his true history. For example, this recollection of his time in Niger sounds a lot more like that of an agent on a mission than anything else:

I was out there both in government and in African government helping them. In fact after the President, the military dictator had been assassinated, I went to see his successor and at the request of some of my friends there and some of the colleagues with whom I had been working, I went to see the new military dictator and I told him in no uncertain terms, that the only way he was going to get out of this mess, not just alive, but perhaps with a chance to restore his own personal honor, and the honor of his organization, the Presidential guard that had been responsible for the assassination of his predecessor. The only chance he had was to get out and effect a change back to democratic rule as quickly as possible. I told him, I said, that you need to understand from my experience in Africa that your successor president probably will not be very comfortable with you standing watching his back after you have effected the transition. After all, your organization was responsible for the assassination of your predecessor shooting him in the back. Therefore, I said to him, I think that you probably ought to leave the country for a while. Those are pretty strong words to walk into a military barracks and tell a guy who has assassinated his predecessor and has assumed responsibility for his country.

Sound like a businessman out trying to see what he could find out for the CIA? Sound like someone just gathering intel? Or does it sound like someone sending a message for the government? If accurate, then this tells me Wilson was an agent communicating mssages from the US to these new owners of a nuclear power base. Anyway, some wild speculation for everyone’s weekend reading.
Update: I forgot one other item which would indicate he was inside the CIA not outside – the Niger Forgeries and his detailed knowledge about them. Wilson had to backpedal a lot on why he knew so much about he forgeries when he testified to the Senate. I post here in a campanion piece all the indications Wilson knew a lot about those forgeries, including the fact he admitted in Oct 2003 (albeit accidentally) the US did not have the forgeries in hand until after his infamous trip. So was the backpedalling a lie under oath or was it a cover story to attempt to undo his mistake at nearly exposing himself? Who knows. Maybe we will find out more at the civil trial.

Again, thanks to Harold, Seixon, Crosspatch and DJStrata for holding down the fort – great work.