Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran nuclear intelligence when outed.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
I'm listening to Hardball, right now, and they're discussing correspondent David Shuster's report that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed. Suprise, suprise...

This isn't up on MSNBC.com, yet, because their transcripts usually run a day behind their programs, but here's what I can find to support this until the transcript is up.

From RawStory.com
update: Cheney's office knew Plame's work was sensitive

05/02/2006 @ 5:20 pm


Filed by RAW STORY

On Chris Matthews' Hardball Tuesday evening, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster provided updates on what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed.

Shuster's Tuesday report suggested that the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney was aware of the sensitivity of Plame's work, though there are no indications he knew she was working on Iran. His report Monday, which can be read here was the first television report to identify Plame's Iran work.

RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna broke the story earlier this year, which went unnoticed by the mainstream media (Read our full story).

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

David Shuster: While the heart of the CIA leak investigation is the Bush administration's agressive defense of the WMD case for war in Iraq, there is new evidence now the defense may have undermined intelligence efforts on Iran.

The key player in the CIA leak story is Valerie Wilson, a CIA operative whose identity was outed by white house officials.

As MSNBC first reported yesterday, Wilson was not just undercover... but was, according to intelligence sources, part of an effort three years ago to monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, part of the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.

There is no evidence Vice President Cheney, who gave information to his now indicted chief of staff Scooter Libby, knew what Wilson was involved in. But intelligence experts say the Vice President appears to have had indications that Wilson's responsibilities were sensitive. The Libby indictment says, quote, "on or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division."

In the Intelligence community, that division means something special.

Rand Beers: You know for a fact that firstly, the people who work there could be undercover agents working in that office or people on the agent's side of the CIA. And secondly, the issues were among the two most important issues the CIA was working on."

Vice President Cheney was no stranger to the CIA. In the run-up to the Iraq war, he visited CIA headquarters on half a dozen occasions. And Scooter Libby, his chief of staff, was also well versed on the intelligence community.

But prosecution documents in the Libby case paint a picture of a white house so intent on undercutting Cheney critic Joe Wilson that officials failed to consider the possible harm to Wilson's wife or the possible damage to the CIA. In other words, say intelligence experts, the white house war on the Wilsons may have actually weakened the administration's war on terror.

Rand Beers: Even at the time of the undermining in the summer of 2003, we were still deeply worried about what was happening in the Iranian nuclear program. So, why would you want to undermine that."

Presidential advisor Karl Rove has told colleagues he had no idea Valerie Wilson's status was sensitive.

As for the Vice President, the Libby indictment states that Cheney spoke to his chief of staff Libby about Valerie Wilson on at least two occasions. One occasion was just hours before Libby allegedly disclosed information about Wilson to reporters Matt Cooper and Judith Miller.

What did the Vice President tell Scooter Libby? And did either official discuss checking with the CIA to determine if Valerie Wilson's identity and work were sensitive? Today, the intelligence community is split on whether Iran is close or not to developing a nuclear weapon. And the CIA refuses to say anything about possible sources in Iran.

Shuster: But the White House has declared Iran to be one of the nation's biggest threats. And it's because of jobs like agent Wilson's that President Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush once declared that those who expose CIA sources are the most insidious of traitors. I'm David Shuster, for hardball, in Washington.
From Edior & Publisher:
Reports: Plame Was Monitoring Iran Nukes When Outed

By E&P Staff

Published: May 02, 2006 10:55 AM ET

NEW YORK What was Valerie Plame working on at the CIA when she was outed by administraton officials and columnist Robert Novak? MSNBC's David Schuster on Monday said he had confirmed an earlier report that she was helping to keep track of Iran's nuclear activity--not a front and center issue for the White House.

Earlier this year, Larisa Alexandrovna of the Web site RawStory.com, reported that Plame, whose covert status was compromised in the leak, was monitoring weapons proliferation in Iran. At the time, officials told her that Plame's outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and "significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation."

On last night's Hardball, MSNBC correspondent Shuster reported that intelligence sources told him thatr Wilson was part of an operation three years ago "tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran." And the sources asserted, he said, "that when here Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well."
The CIA guys discussing the story on Harball say that, in trying to play their political game, the the Bushwhackos did some serious damage to U.S. security interests.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :|
 

calbear2000

Golden Member
Oct 17, 2001
1,027
0
0
All this backlash just to undermine the credibility of a war dissenter?

This will go down as one of the biggest blunders of this administration and war...
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: calbear2000
All this backlash just to undermine the credibility of a war dissenter?

This will go down as one of the biggest blunders of this administration and war...
It just adds to the underlying crime of starting the war based entirely on lies. Time to impeach the entire administration for treason! :|
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
When does king george's trial on treason charges begin? And don't forget cheney. Hell, this whole godam administration needs to be charged with treason.
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Wiretapping your political opponents, and cheating on your wife in the Oval Office then lying about it under oath seem like such trivial matters in this new reality.
I previously thought both were abhorent. Nixon in history (I was born a couple years later) and Clinton in during my times (I supported his impeachment for lying under oath).

With the impeachment standard seemingly set by the above mentioned cases it's stunning and frightening that this current POTUS isn't also being called to answer his transgressions.
What the hell is going on?
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,566
890
126
This administration doesn't want any good intelligence on Iran. They will make up whatever intelligence they need to justify whatever they want to do there.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: conehead433
This administration doesn't want any good intelligence on Iran.
The biggest intelligence failure in this administration is between George Bush's ears. :p
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: calbear2000
All this backlash just to undermine the credibility of a war dissenter?

This will go down as one of the biggest blunders of this administration and war...

Nothing will happen to them, they still have the blessings of the church and 52% of the American Sheeple.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: conehead433
This administration doesn't want any good intelligence on Iran. They will make up whatever intelligence they need to justify whatever they want to do there.

Exactly. Good intelligence would come back to bite them after Iran doesn't go according to plan.
 

shurato

Platinum Member
Sep 24, 2000
2,398
0
76
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Repost

Is that all you can say on this matter you right wing troll? I see you didn't respond in the thread your linking EITHER.


WAKE UP PEOPLE, Let's not get desensitized to all this corruption. Something must be done.
I swear to god if you shaved Bush's hair off you'd find a 666 or something.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Repost
That's a pile of... ummm.... BUSHWIT! The last post in that thread was conjur's on 4/10/2006. This just broke this afternoon.

Nice try, but you're not going to derail a valid thread just because it shows what your brain dead hero's really made of.
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Repost
That's a pile of... ummm.... BUSHWIT! The last post in that thread was conjur's on 4/10/2006. This just broke this afternoon.

Nice try, but you're not going to derail a valid thread just because it shows what your brain dead hero's really made of.

Same topic,

Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran nuclear intelligence when outed

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say


Repost, yea, in light of what you might say, any new information, if there is any, would belong in the OP. Moreover, doing a simple search of the key words would have easily brought up the OP.
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: shurato
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Repost

Is that all you can say on this matter you right wing troll? I see you didn't respond in the thread your linking EITHER.


WAKE UP PEOPLE, Let's not get desensitized to all this corruption. Something must be done.
I swear to god if you shaved Bush's hair off you'd find a 666 or something.


Oh that is your sentiments something must be done, woo that is input there, left wing troll. Was she a NOC in the last 5 years of her service, not according to some, did it set the agency back ten years, I highly doubt it, if it did however that is a serious problem, when and if the CIA reports the findings to the Senate we may a learn bit more about the situation until then I?ll hold my critique. Further, do you know Woodward?s original source no didn?t think so.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,176
2,285
136
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Originally posted by: shurato
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Repost

Is that all you can say on this matter you right wing troll? I see you didn't respond in the thread your linking EITHER.


WAKE UP PEOPLE, Let's not get desensitized to all this corruption. Something must be done.
I swear to god if you shaved Bush's hair off you'd find a 666 or something.


Oh that is your sentiments something must be done, woo that is input there, left wing troll. Was she a NOC in the last 5 years of her service, not according to some, did it set the agency back ten years, I highly doubt it, if it did however that is a serious problem, when and if the CIA reports the findings to the Senate we may a learn bit more about the situation until then I?ll hold my critique. Further, do you know Woodward?s original source no didn?t think so.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

If she was not a NOC in the past five years then why did the CIA ask for an investigation of the leak? If she was not a NOC and the CIA asked for the investigation then that would make the CIA loose crediblity all around the world.



 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If she was not a NOC in the past five years then why did the CIA ask for an investigation of the leak? If she was not a NOC and the CIA asked for the investigation then that would make the CIA loose crediblity all around the world.

You're making a huge leap of faith that they have any credibility to begin with. I for one think the CIA has done an incredibly inept job of things the last few years in both end product (underestimating Iraq's WMD capability after Gulf War 1, swinging to the opposite side before Gulf War 2, being completely blindsided by Pakistani and Indian nuclear tests, missing 9/11 and almost every other terrorist attack of the last dozen years) and sloppy methodology (e.g. the "tradecraft" they used to establish Valerie Plame's NOC cover story was broken by a journalist with a Google search, they found an old address for her listed as the "U.S. Embassy").

One doesn't have to be conspiracy theorist to come up with the following conclusions given the possibilities:

(A) this story is true, which means the CIA is IMHO criminally negiligent for allowing all their assets to be tied to a single person. If Valerie Plame had gotten killed after being hit by a bus, you're telling me the CIA would simply say "Sorry Mr. President, but the one person who knows anything about Iran WMD is unavailable, so we can't provide any intel" ?

(B) this story is false or exaggerated in order for the CIA to play CYA. This scenario seems just way too convenient for a way for the CIA to excuse intelligence failures for the CIA to claim that she was working on Iran and without her it'll set back our efforts 10 years.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
If she was not a NOC in the past five years then why did the CIA ask for an investigation of the leak? If she was not a NOC and the CIA asked for the investigation then that would make the CIA loose crediblity all around the world.

You're making a huge leap of faith that they have any credibility to begin with. I for one think the CIA has done an incredibly inept job of things the last few years in both end product (underestimating Iraq's WMD capability after Gulf War 1, swinging to the opposite side before Gulf War 2, being completely blindsided by Pakistani and Indian nuclear tests, missing 9/11 and almost every other terrorist attack of the last dozen years) and sloppy methodology (e.g. the "tradecraft" they used to establish Valerie Plame's NOC cover story was broken by a journalist with a Google search, they found an old address for her listed as the "U.S. Embassy").

One doesn't have to be conspiracy theorist to come up with the following conclusions given the possibilities:

(A) this story is true, which means the CIA is IMHO criminally negiligent for allowing all their assets to be tied to a single person. If Valerie Plame had gotten killed after being hit by a bus, you're telling me the CIA would simply say "Sorry Mr. President, but the one person who knows anything about Iran WMD is unavailable, so we can't provide any intel" ?

(B) this story is false or exaggerated in order for the CIA to play CYA. This scenario seems just way too convenient for a way for the CIA to excuse intelligence failures for the CIA to claim that she was working on Iran and without her it'll set back our efforts 10 years.

Speaking of "way too convenient", I find it rather amusing that your two possibilities free the leakers from any wrongdoing. Even if your conspiracy theories were true, I'm not sure making it worse is all that good an idea...as the people in charge of protecting the country, I would expect our leaders to, you know, DO SOMETHING to improve the CIA's performance. Leaking agents' names to the press doesn't really fall into that catagory.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Speaking of "way too convenient", I find it rather amusing that your two possibilities free the leakers from any wrongdoing. Even if your conspiracy theories were true, I'm not sure making it worse is all that good an idea...as the people in charge of protecting the country, I would expect our leaders to, you know, DO SOMETHING to improve the CIA's performance. Leaking agents' names to the press doesn't really fall into that catagory.

No, it doesn't excuse the leakers at all. I've even heard conspiracy theories that finger either Joe Wilson or the CIA itself as the leaker.

However, there is absolutely no reason why your point can't be pursued independently. I think there's plenty of fvck-ups and blame to go around for both the CIA and Administration. Yes, I think the CIA has sucked ass for the last decade or so, AND I think it's a duty of our leaders to improve the CIA's performance (or offer a suitable alternative) and if they deliberately sabotaged the agency, that should be brought forward and dealt with accordingly. But more and more it seems that both sides are waging war on each other and delaying possible improvements. The CIA has to realize that they report to the President and serve at his pleasure, and the President has to realize that they're his asset and to not piss away their authority and credibility if their honest conclusions don't fit his agenda. Right now both are acting like they're trying to cover their bare ass with the other one.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Speaking of "way too convenient", I find it rather amusing that your two possibilities free the leakers from any wrongdoing. Even if your conspiracy theories were true, I'm not sure making it worse is all that good an idea...as the people in charge of protecting the country, I would expect our leaders to, you know, DO SOMETHING to improve the CIA's performance. Leaking agents' names to the press doesn't really fall into that catagory.

No, it doesn't excuse the leakers at all. I've even heard conspiracy theories that finger either Joe Wilson or the CIA itself as the leaker.

However, there is absolutely no reason why your point can't be pursued independently. I think there's plenty of fvck-ups and blame to go around for both the CIA and Administration. Yes, I think the CIA has sucked ass for the last decade or so, AND I think it's a duty of our leaders to improve the CIA's performance (or offer a suitable alternative) and if they deliberately sabotaged the agency, that should be brought forward and dealt with accordingly. But more and more it seems that both sides are waging war on each other and delaying possible improvements. The CIA has to realize that they report to the President and serve at his pleasure, and the President has to realize that they're his asset and to not piss away their authority and credibility if their honest conclusions don't fit his agenda. Right now both are acting like they're trying to cover their bare ass with the other one.

My appologies, I made an assumption about your motives there...won't happen again ;)

In any case, I can agree with you that it would help things quite a bit if various government and intelligence groups would try to really work together and stop all the political crap. Of course, Bush's particular style of leadership isn't exactly famous for evoking those kinds of feelings with people...I suppose the people in government are no different.

Personally I think his whole DNI idea was a big missfire, more layers are not what is needed in this particular situation.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
My appologies, I made an assumption about your motives there...won't happen again

In any case, I can agree with you that it would help things quite a bit if various government and intelligence groups would try to really work together and stop all the political crap. Of course, Bush's particular style of leadership isn't exactly famous for evoking those kinds of feelings with people...I suppose the people in government are no different.

Personally I think his whole DNI idea was a big missfire, more layers are not what is needed in this particular situation.

On your first point, I just want the CIA to work and not produce utter crap. Obviously there are some problems on both sides making that a more difficult goal, as you allude to in your second point. Bush's leadership style is partly to blame, but no more than a CIA organization which seems to be campaiging actively against him to deflect criticism from itself. Basically someone will have to step up and accept blame for the past and present fvckups and work to improve things, and whichever side does so first will be the one I support.

Agree on your point 3.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
If she was not a NOC in the past five years then why did the CIA ask for an investigation of the leak? If she was not a NOC and the CIA asked for the investigation then that would make the CIA loose crediblity all around the world.

You're making a huge leap of faith that they have any credibility to begin with. I for one think the CIA has done an incredibly inept job of things the last few years in both end product (underestimating Iraq's WMD capability after Gulf War 1, swinging to the opposite side before Gulf War 2, being completely blindsided by Pakistani and Indian nuclear tests, missing 9/11 and almost every other terrorist attack of the last dozen years) and sloppy methodology (e.g. the "tradecraft" they used to establish Valerie Plame's NOC cover story was broken by a journalist with a Google search, they found an old address for her listed as the "U.S. Embassy").

One doesn't have to be conspiracy theorist to come up with the following conclusions given the possibilities:

(A) this story is true, which means the CIA is IMHO criminally negiligent for allowing all their assets to be tied to a single person. If Valerie Plame had gotten killed after being hit by a bus, you're telling me the CIA would simply say "Sorry Mr. President, but the one person who knows anything about Iran WMD is unavailable, so we can't provide any intel" ?

(B) this story is false or exaggerated in order for the CIA to play CYA. This scenario seems just way too convenient for a way for the CIA to excuse intelligence failures for the CIA to claim that she was working on Iran and without her it'll set back our efforts 10 years.



Duh it's the government. I do find it amusing at times as many conservaties often rail on about "the government can't do anything right" and OTOH put so much faith in some of it's insitutions.. And are shocked, shocked I tell ya that 9-11 sliipped though thier web.:p
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
My appologies, I made an assumption about your motives there...won't happen again

In any case, I can agree with you that it would help things quite a bit if various government and intelligence groups would try to really work together and stop all the political crap. Of course, Bush's particular style of leadership isn't exactly famous for evoking those kinds of feelings with people...I suppose the people in government are no different.

Personally I think his whole DNI idea was a big missfire, more layers are not what is needed in this particular situation.

On your first point, I just want the CIA to work and not produce utter crap. Obviously there are some problems on both sides making that a more difficult goal, as you allude to in your second point. Bush's leadership style is partly to blame, but no more than a CIA organization which seems to be campaiging actively against him to deflect criticism from itself. Basically someone will have to step up and accept blame for the past and present fvckups and work to improve things, and whichever side does so first will be the one I support.

Agree on your point 3.

I think part of the problem with the CIA, and with any intelligence agency for that matter, is that the public has little information about how successful they actually are. Their business is secret, and it's really only the screwups that make it on the news. The CIA is a popular target because they are the most well known intelligence agency in the country, but I think it's somewhat true of all intelligence community agencies. If they do a good job, we never hear about it. I think this tends to result in somewhat of an overreaction to screwups, which results in some defensiveness from the agencies.

I'm not excusing what are very real mistakes, I'm just thinking that there might be a reason for the reactions we are seeing to what could have been a rational, reasoned discussion. President Bush certainly isn't making it any easier, his leadership style is a problem, but so is the fact that he has (several times) gone before the public and pretty much called the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community a bunch of incompetent idiots. Not in those words, but the basic idea is there, especially as it relates to Iraqi WMDs. Bush's excuse has been that he made the best decision possible with the crappy information given to him by the incompetent folks at the CIA, and it's really their fault we invaded based on incorrect information. It seems quite natural that the CIA is responding rather poorly to that , especially since it seems clear that the situation is not nearly so cut and dried as Bush suggests.

But as I said, I'm not excusing their mistakes, and there are plenty of them. Part of the issue is that the entire IC was built up during the cold war to watch the Russians. That was it, and they were good at it. And then pretty much overnight, the situation changed and the intelligence folks were caught a little flat-footed. As I'm sure anyone with a fully functioning brain can figure out, keeping tabs on small groups of terrorists is not exactly the same as watching the only other world superpower. But the other part of the issue is admitting that there IS a problem...something most people, especially in that business, aren't especially good at.