Valerie Plame and the Incredible Shrinking Cover Story

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert agent (so says Victoria Toensing), and furthermore the White House did not know that she was a covert agent (so says Rep. Tom Davis). It's all the fault of the CIA for not telling the White House that she was covert.

That appears to be the essence of the Bush loyalist's rebuttal to Valerie Plame Wilson's testimony to Henry Waxman's Committee hearing. That this account is a flat-out contradiction is of concern only to elite nit-picking liberals and not to the aforementioned loyalists whose elaborate excuses transcend mere logic.

Like mariners stranded on an iceberg adrift in the Gulf Stream, the Bush apologists have less and less to cling to as, with time, the refuting testimony and evidence accumulate.

It has now come to the point that pro-Bush apologetics are so pathetically lame and absurd that their defenses serve only to strengthen the case against the Busheviks. Case-in-point: the testimony last Friday of Victoria Toensing before the Waxman Committee.

The "not really a covert agent" dodge

This much can be stipulated: To the "outside world," Valerie Plame was employed as an "energy analyst" by "Brewster Jennings and Associates." (To distinguish husband and wife, I will use the names "Wilson" and "Plame" respectively). However, "Brewster Jennings" was a "front" for the CIA, through which essential information about weapons of mass destruction was gathered, coordinated and assessed. Plame's and Brewster Jennings' actual work, intelligence gathering, was a closely held national security secret.

Accordingly, the Director of Central Intelligence, General Michael Hayden, stated for the public record:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. (EP emphasis) This was classified information.

But no, says Victoria Toensing, Valerie Plame was not really "covert." Not according to The Intelligence Identities Protection Act which, Ms. Toensing wants us all to know, she helped draft a couple of decades ago. Toensing contends that Plame qualified as "covert" according to all provisions of the Act save one, which stipulates that a cover agent is one "... who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent (etc)..." This is Toensing's "gotcha!" Plame, she says, did not "reside" outside the US in the required past five years, so she was not, says Toensing, "covert within the meaning of the statute, which I am an expert on because I helped draft it." Never mind that Plame was employed by a CIA front organization, that she engaged in top secret intelligence gathering, that the information so gathered was essential to the national security of the United States, that her very life and that of her operatives abroad depended on the non-disclosure of her CIA association. And finally, no matter that the CIA Director explicitly identified Plame's activity as "covert." Never mind all that. Victoria Toensing points out that Plame did not reside outside the United States, as the law requires.

Ergo, Valerie Plame was not "covert."

Quibbles such as this are, no doubt, the reason that Charles Dickens famously wrote, "the law is an ass," and the reason that some lawyers' three piece suits have Kevlar vests.

So what are we asked to make of this? That because Plame was not "covert" according to the exact letter of the law, therefore no damage to national security resulted from her "outing?" That it was perfectly OK for Robert Novak to put an abrupt end to Plame's enterprise and that of the fake company, Brewster Jennings, thus shutting off the inflow of vital information, and putting numerous courageous operatives at grave risk?

If that's the best that the defenders of the Bushevik finks can come up with, then their case is reduced to absurdity.

But it gets much worse. For Toensing is also defeated by the "letter" of her precious Intelligence Identities Protection Act. An alternative provision of the Act allowed that a "covert agent" may have "served" outside the U.S., as Plame clearly had done. Accordingly, we have the alternatives "reside" or "serve." Thus Toensing is undone by the simple word "or". It therefore follows (as if it really matters) that Plame qualified as "covert" according to the exact letter of the law. (This point is brilliantly argued in "Daily Kos" by "Litigatormom," whose post includes quotations from the Intelligence Identities Protection Act).

Exit the "not really covert" excuse.

Next, the "African Junket" excuse

We hear that "Joe Wilson's trip to Africa was of no importance – it was just a "junket" arranged by his wife, who worked for the CIA.

I suppose by this we are asked to imagine the following conversation, chez Wilson:

Val: "Honey, how would you like to get away from the house for a few days – take a little vacation on the CIA's tab? I'll just stay home and take care of the twin babies all by myself."

Joe: "Great! Where shall I go? Rio for the Carnivale? Paris for the Opera? The Riviera? Moscow to see the Bolshoi Ballet?"

Val: "No, this will be really special: an all expense paid luxurious "junket" to Niamey, Niger, the world-renowned "garden-spot of Africa.'"

Joe: "Oh, Wow! When do I leave?"

Don't know about you, but I'd just as soon stay at home. More so, if my wife were Valerie Plame.

Then we are told that Joe Wilson wasn't really qualified for the job. No matter that he spoke fluent French, the official language of Niger, that he served as the U.S. ambassador to the neighboring country of Gabon, that he had spent twenty-three distinguished years in government service for which he was awarded citations from, among others, President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Finally, the "Who knew?" complaint

Tom Davis, ranking Republican member of the Waxman Committee, expects us to believe that none of the many individuals who passed word of Plame's CIA employment around the White House, the State Department and the Washington Press corps, knew, or thought to ask the CIA, whether or not she was a covert agent, and further, whether any harm might come from disclosing her name to the public. When word circulated among that select group that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA," did it occur to no one that it might be best to assume covert status, until and unless assured otherwise by the CIA? Hadn't they heard that "loose lips sink ships"? Karl Rove apparently had, when he told Time's Matt Cooper that "I've already said too much." And when, in his infamous column of July 14, 2003, Robert Novak identified Plame as "an agency (CIA) operative on weapons of mass destruction," and when the CIA begged him not to publish this information, could he have possibly believed that Plame was just a "desk jockey?" What on earth was he thinking?

And why is Robert Novak still at large?

What's next?

With the official cover story on Plamegate reduced to ruins, what lies ahead? Full White House disclosure? Appropriate firings? Apologies to the Wilsons?

Don't be silly!

There will be a frantic Bushevik search for new defenses. Here are some possibilities:

1. Point out that as an experienced CIA operative, Valerie Plame is a skillful liar. And so, she lied to the Waxman committee, start to finish. Perjury? Not to worry, we'll be told. The committee is controlled by the Democrats.

2. Shift attention away from the crimes and misdemeanors of the Busheviks and the negligence of the mainstream media, to the personal shortcomings of the Wilsons, real or invented. Here's one: Valerie Plame is a narcissistic cry-baby. That ploy just might be in the works. At Google News this morning (10 AM EDT), I found these, and only these, headlines about Plame's testimony: "Wilson: Leak cut off path to career." (New York Times). "Former CIA spy says betrayed by Bush Administration. (Xinhua). "Ex Spy says what leak did to career." (SF Chronicle). We've already been told by the Washington Post editorialists that Joseph Wilson is a "blowhard." Expect more of the same.

3. Finally, take a lesson from the master, Josef Goebbels, and concoct a "big lie," the more outrageous and fantastic, the better. Then repeat, and repeat, and repeat.

John Gibson of (what else?) FOX News is leading the way. On March 7, Gibson served up this astonishing hypothesis: "There was a cabal inside the CIA working against the president's policy and they wanted to hide behind their secret status while they did what was essentially an anti-war political hitjob." (This is such a perfect example of pure, unadulterated malarkey, that I have subjected Gibson's three-minute fantasy to a scrupulous analysis and running commentary. You will find it in my personal blog. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it).

Face it: the exposure of Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings, was a crime against the state, that has caused enormous, if unknowable, harm to security of the United States. Some dare call it "treason." Quite frankly, I don't see why not.

The Bush Administration is frantically trying to avoid just retaliation by the law, the Congress, the media, and the public for this crime.

As one defense after another is stripped away with new evidence and plain common sense, and as the public becomes ever more aware of the enormity of this crime, the Busheviks become both more vulnerable and more dangerous.

We must all, therefore, be resolute, wise, and cautious. But no American worthy of his or her political heritage, has any excuse to sit this one out.

For if this crime goes unpunished, what defenses remain against the oncoming dictatorship?

-- EP

[yellowcanine]

1. And of course, the fact that she was not covert according to "Victoria's Law"

does not mean she was not covert according to other laws or executive orders. Just means you can't cite that law in prosecuting someone. But there are plenty of other laws which could be used to prosecute someone for outing Plame, regardless of how one wants to define "covert".

[EST]

5. Interestingly, it came out at the hearing, that she had, indeed

been operating outside the country in the preceding five years-not something the CIA wanted to make public as well. So, even the self-inflating Toensing doll's bs rule was satisfied.
What do you want to bet that VT masturbates in front of a full length mirror?

[yellowcanine]

15. That is an extremely disturbing mind picture that you paint.

[The Wizard]

18. VT masturbating

in front of a full length mirror. Now that's pornographic. When does the video get released
(or escape)? Now that I think about it, I'd rather vomit or pour alcohol on an open wound.:puke:

[Lasher]

19. The lie is built around parsing of 'worked' and 'resides'

Forgive me if I am repetitive in the following but this needs to be nailed down precisely:

In an October, 2005 press conference Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said, "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."

The CIA authorized Representative Waxman to characterize Plame as having been under cover, her employment status was classified information, and at the time Novak’s column was published she was covert.

During House hearings on March 16, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Valerie Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

Wilson occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming - wrongly - were for a nuclear weapons program.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA) amended United States Code Title 50 Chapter 15 to provide, in part:

Subchapter IV Protection of Certain National Security Information

Section 426 Definitions

(4) The term "covert agent" means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or...

Emphasis mine.

Victoria passed by subparagraph (A), which clearly applies to Plame, in favor of subparagraph (B). She knew better. She lied under oath to Congress.

[screembloodymurder]

2. Smart blonds don't get covered.

Even when they're hot, hot, hot. In any other context, this woman would be story number one.

[Quantess]

7. Yes, especially not while they're still alive.

I'm such a cynic, but it's the truth.

[EST]

3. Very good synopsis!

And, as a picky aside, it is so very gratifying to see someone use the word "enormity" in its proper context, not, as it is so often used by those wishing to appear erudite, interchangeably with "enormous."

[exlrrp]

4. This is how the Republicons control the dialogue

Whether Plame was covert or not actually has nothing to do with the crimes Libby was convicted of. he was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury.
What theyre doing here is muddying the waters to make the Fitzgerald investigation look stupid. Theyre not adding any new facts, theyre just smoking and mirroring the truth--that there was a conspiracy in the Bush White House to smear the Wilsons and that man y high ranking Bush aides, and Cheney, participated in it.
They want to keep thhat fact out of the public eye--thats why they come up with all the superfluous stuff--its just smoke and mirrors. I'm not sure what Toensing has to do with all this anyway--is she the only one who has an opinion about the IIPA? Is she the only one "who drafted it?" Why is hers the only opinion we hear about this?
Either she's right or she's wrong--why is hers the only voice heard?

[robinlynne]

11. uhh. this is not about the libby trial. this is about the congressional investigation.

there were a lot of voices heard, last week, under oath. victoria's was one.

[EVDebs]

6. Subverting a legit covert anti-WMD op (Brewster Jennings) was Bushco's aim

and their modus operandi is always 'the next war' rather than winning the one they're already in. In the BJ/Plame case it was the run-up to Iran.

FoxSnooze's "an anti-war political hitjob" quote has it ass backwards ! Bush's aim was an inside pro-war hitjob and if you didn't go along for the ride, look what would happen to you and your career and your family and your contacts...

[Peace Patriot]

8. The Bushcons have two problems: 1) political conspiracy, and 2) crimes (outing, treason).

And a third: impeachment (you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached--just "convicted" by the Congress of gross malfeasance--impeachment does NOT require proof of guilt of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt"; the punishment is not jail--denial of freedom--but merely removal from office). (Impeachment, in other words, is partly a political proceeding--involving the political judgment of what malfeasance is, in a political office, by other politicians.)

I think Toensing is, first of all, creating "talking points" against impeachment. She wants it to turn on the narrow grounds of proving a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." She is laying the groundwork for that--and is whorishly using her legal credentials (and "Goldwater" creds) to establish that what Bush/Cheney did was not illegal. (Cheney has already tried to establish a declassification "talking point" to this end--they were technically within the law to declassify Plame's status--if that's what they did, for instance, if there is a secret paper somewhere signed by Bush, or a lie in development, that he SAID she was declassified--despite the fact that they violated all existing procedures for such declassification--and I think, if it comes to it, we may find them arguing that they had the right to declassify her AFTER THE FACT, so that nothing anyone did was technically illegal--the sort of mind-boggling argument we've come to expect from Dick Cheney and his ilk).

Toensing's arguments are very like Alberto Gonzales' arguments on torture--torture is not torture if it includes physical harm up to, but not including, organ failure and death. And the Geneva Conventions, which plainly forbid ALL torture, are just "quaint" artifacts of the pre-Bush Junta era when human rights had some meaning.

Outing a covert CIA agent--one with an elaborately created covert identity--is technically not illegal, according to Toensing, if she is not a covert agent residing in a foreign country. No matter that it may nevertheless be treason, no matter that it may have done great harm. And no matter the actual facts--that Plame TRAVELED abroad on secret missions, and put herself in danger both at home and abroad, and was running a network of deep cover foreign agents/contacts, whose SAFETY was tied to her covert identity. Toensing is NOT in the least interested in national security. If she were, she would be roundly condemning this action. She is trying to get BUSH/CHENEY off the hook, as to having committed a crime. If this grounds for impeachment is argued on "harm" rather than on the covert identities act (or, alternatively, if it is argued on their powers of declassification--with them claiming that they can wield them quite arbitrarily), then it's on ground that Bushites prefer--fuzzy ground, where they can just bullshit their way through. (And don't think that some Democrats won't be sympathetic, looking to the future powers of Democratic presidents!).

Probably this matter will not be heard in a court of law--with Bush or Cheney in the dock. But, just in case, Toensing is also laying groundwork for a criminal defense--in which "beyond reasonable doubt" has to be established.

I don't know much about treason law--except that treason is generally defined as aiding the enemy in time of war. What Bush/Cheney did to Plame and to the counter-proliferation network that she was head of could certainly be described as aiding the enemy in time of war. The BJ network was tracking WMDs in the Middle East. How convenient, for Islamic terrorists, to have the CIA eyes and ears on illicit weapons movements removed--by the Bush Junta! If that is not treason, I don't know what is. But I rather doubt that an actual trial for treason--or a charge of treason in an impeachment proceeding--will occur. (For one thing, there are too many War Democrats hogtied to the "military-industrial complex" who might prefer to downplay the lies and deceit that were created as the feasible narrative for this war. The outing of Plame/B-J is tied to Joe Wilson, who was calling the Bushites out on their lies--lies that the War Democrats are using as cover for their own malfeasance.)

Finally, there is the political conspiracy--which is so Nixonlike. What Nixon was involved in, and what got him impeached (he resigned before the actual impeachment could play out), was providing millions of dollars for attorney's fees, and as hush money, to operatives of the Nixon re-election campaign in 1972, who burglarized the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. (I think their purpose--or one of their known purposes--was to place listening bugs in the DNC office--during the campaign against McGovern.) They were also involved in burglarizing the psychiatrist office of Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who had exposed the government's lies about the Vietnam War (--an obvious parallel to Joe Wilson). They were looking for dirt with which to discredit Ellsberg.

It's interesting that the Bushcons on Waxman's committee tried to politicize Plame's testimony (asked her if she is a Democrat). They seem to see everything as a political conspiracy, probably because they themselves are such dirty players in the political arena. They viewed the honest professionals in the CIA, who supported cleaning up CIA intelligence policy--which had gotten so brutal and disgusting during the Reagan era, especially in Latin America--as having DEMOCRATIC values. Not American values. Democratic values. Anyone who opposes assassination of foreign leaders, torturing prisoners, killing peasants and leftists and union organizers, manufacturing war, and all the other horrid things that CIA is known for, and who sees no value in those policies, and/or who see those policies as wrong, must be Democrats. This is the twisted thinking that the Nixonites exhibited.

And it got carried over into the Bush era. They considered discrediting Wilson a POLITICAL act. (--no matter that he was a Republican at the time--his crime being that he didn't believe in lying to the public!). And their newsstream campaign to discredit Wilson (who was telling the truth) led them right off the cliff, into a criminal action--just like the Nixonites and the Watergate burglars. They seem unable to make a distinction between what is political and what belongs to all of us--the government. They also don't seem to have any confidence that their ideas will win--except by dirty tricks, by stealth and by crime, and by using government power illegitimately to suppress dissent. Who is unamerican?

The Bush Junta went much further than this, of course--they are not just guilty of crimes, but are an all-out criminal conspiracy to loot the federal government, to destroy every one of its agencies, to destroy our Constitution, and to hijack the US military to perpetrate corporate resource wars. They are Nixonites gone mad. I suspect that Plamegate is much deeper than we know--and probably involves a conspiracy to cover up other crimes (--a scheme to plant WMDs in Iraq to be "found" by the US troops who were "hunting" for them, as followup to the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries; a long term conspiracy to destroy any honest professionals in the CIA and other national security entities, to be able to perpetrate a war on Iran and other nations; and possibly to stop investigations of the 9/11 money trail and of Cheney's dirty arms dealings).

Toensing is a typical, shameless Bushite--way, way out on a rightwing limb, defending this criminal regime. She is far crazier than any Nixonite ever was. Once President Nixon was caught on tape, arranging hush money, Republican support for him evaporated, and he was asked to resign. But you get the feeling that Toensing and her ilk would go on defending Bush/Cheney, no matter what they did--not only justifying their crimes with "letter of the law" defenses, but also excusing their POLITICAL brutishness as acceptable behavior. The standards for political behavior have sunk through the floor. There are NO standards. Anything is acceptable that keeps Bushites in power. And I can hear Toensing defending them on ANY political crime (as well as on war crimes). Just imagine for a moment exposure of a Rove email to Diebold techs, prior to the 2004 election, laying out the percentages by which Bush needed to win in certain swing states. And imagine Toensing's defense: 'But he never TOLD them to fiddle those codes. He was just exercising his first amendment right to talk about politics--a right all Americans have. If THEY took it mean that they should do something illegal, that's THEIR problem.' Can't you just hear it?

I have a psychological theory about Dick Cheney that he is re-playing each of the events of Nixon's presidency--the expansion of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the "Saturday Night Massacre," the impeachment and resignation--and trying to make them come out as wins for the dark side, rather than losses. I think he's stuck in the past--way back then--psychologically. He's been pretty successful at it so far. Got us into a war we can't get out of. Got himself a stupid, conscienceless president who doesn't even know the difference between right and wrong--as Nixon did. Got himself a president who will never have any shame, and a "pod people" Congress of hypocrites, thieves and pedophiles. Got sure fired re-election, with the Diebold/ES&S election theft machines--to keep the American people off their backs. Got his "Saturday Night Massacre"--with the firings of the US attorneys (probably wanted Fitzgerald's head, too--but couldn't manage it; Gonzo too dirty, I think--that may be what Sealed vs. Sealed was about). But Cheney may have finally reached the end of his re-played dreams. The rude awakening. Let's hope so. The fact that Toensing and others like her don't feel the need to bail out--like John Dean did, for instance--is worrisome. She should be ashamed to be associated with them. Barry Goldwater must be turning in his grave. He may have been a rightwing dinosaur, but he was not a scumbag.

[Ernest Partridge]

10. The Author Responds to "Peace Patriot"

Outstanding analysis! Couldn't have said it better myself.

One additional point, if I may. Nixon was undone by an independent and enterprising watchdog media.

The oligarchs took notice and have successfully solved that "problem."

Except for a few courageous media critics (e.g., Olbermann, Cafferty, Stewart), all that remains of an opposition media is the internet.

For the moment, at least.

Thanks for your splendid commentary. It deserves independent publication.

Ernest Partridge

[colorado_ufo]

9. I love a sip of truth with my morning coffee.

[robinlynne]

12. In fact, this very argument about being out of the country was already answered,

under oath, within an hour of it's spouting. a congresswoman asked valerie if she had been outside of the US on a secret mission during the last 5 years, and valeria responded yes. Waxman then asked victoria if she was privy to more knowledge about plame's career than plame herself.

[dsweet]

13. Could Toensing be more involved?

Plame is "fair game." Obviously, this sounds like a statement made after some sort of legal consultation was undertaken. Considering Toensing's creed among the GOP could she have served as the legal adviser for the subsequent outing of Plame? I know she testified that she drew her conclusions from media and trial proceeding, but it would make sense that her flawed memory of "Victoria's Law" was the basis for the administration's belief that Plame was "fair game." By "fair game" I do mean whether or not it would be a crime to leak her identity. Could she testify that she could draw her conclusion from publicly available information even if she had information and communications protected under attorney/client privilege? Could it be a technically correct, but ultimately an incomplete answer? What was she up to in the run-up to Novak's column?

[Polemicist]

14. Did Dick Cheney meet Valerie Plame at CIA before the war?

I read yesterday that Valerie Plame Wilson's job at the CIA in 2002 and 2003, was as head of the Iraq WMD task force in the Counter Proliferation Bureau in the Operations Directorate. That means she was the top point person for the entire CIA effort to gather information on Iraqi WMD before and during the Iraq War.

We know Dick Cheney went to CIA headquarters a number of times to discuss the Iraq intelligence pre-war. Who do you suppose he met with on those trips? I would be very surprised if Valerie Plame Wilson wasn't at the very least on the short list of people that met with VP Cheney to outline their findings. If I were head of that effort and a bigwig came to my shop, I would damn sure be present at the briefing.

Is this how Dick Cheney knew who Valerie Plame was and where she worked when Joe Wilson wrote that NYTimes op ed? Is this the original source of the OVP's knowledge of Ms. Plame's job? Is this what Libby perjured himself to cover up?

[EST]

16. In response to a question about whether or not it was

intimidating to have the vp visit, she talked about it's being terribly intimidating to have the vp looking over your shoulder while you tried to work. It sure sounded to me like she was describing a personal experience.

[Polemicist]

17. Valerie has written a book, but can't yet publish it...

As the CIA hasn't yet cleared the book for publication, if I recall what Joe Wilson said. I'm not sure it's the CIA that's holding up publication, but somebody in the government has held it up. I would be interested to see what she says on that issue.

I don't think Ms. Plame was cleared by the CIA to talk about certain things in that testimony before Waxman's committee. She commented at the beginning that her prepared remarks were cleared by CIA before her testimony. Often when intelligence people publicly testify, certain topics are off limits and both the questioners and the witnesses are aware of such agreements not to discuss certain things.

I had not heard your comment about what Ms. Plame said about Cheney's visit. And there is a further possible string to Valerie's position at CIA before the war. Cheney was fighting with CIA about the Iraqi Intelligence. He kept trying to get stuff dug up by his and Rumsfeld's little backroom operation at the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, included in CIA Intelligence Estimates on Iraq. From what I understand, the CIA resisted these efforts, because the intelligence was questionable. Was it Ms. Plame who stood up to VP Cheney on these issues? Did she gain the enmity of the VP in the process, so that he was more than happy to go after her later?

I think there might be a lot more to be made public on this subject in the future.