Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Robert Novak :: Townhall.com Columnist
Was Valerie Covert?
by Robert Novak
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


WASHINGTON -- Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard last Friday on television as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.

As House Intelligence Committee chairman when Republicans still controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, the 67-year-old, 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra Wednesday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing" Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.

Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in secret intelligence.

Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert, and cited Hayden as proof. The DCI's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the Agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.

These issues were not explored by the only two Republicans who showed up at last week's hearing. Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican and former chairman, is a skilled legislator but not prone to roughhouse with Waxman. Unwilling to challenge Plame's covert status, Davis blamed the CIA instead of the White House for her alleged exposure. The other Republican present -- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."

Davis had e-mailed the committee's other Republicans requesting their presence. Where were they? I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings. "We felt the committee is so biased," he replied, "we would do better to just stay away."

That decision left the field last Friday to such partisan Democrats as Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Rep. Diane Watson, Waxman's fellow Californian, mimicked the chairman's inquisitorial style. She repeatedly interrupted lawyer Victoria Toensing, the lone rebuttal witness granted the Republicans by Waxman.

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982) if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.

Waxman relied on his support from Gen. Hayden. When the DCI's role was pointed out to one of the president's most important aides, there was no response. The White House from the start has treated the Plame leak as a criminal case not to be commented on. The Democrats still consider it a political blunderbuss, aimed at Karl Rove and his boss.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert Novak is a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
We'll Never Know
There's a lot of confusion out there because there are TWO meanings being used for the word "covert," and nobody is being clear about which one they are talking about (they often don't understand the difference).

The first meaning is "covert" as used by the CIA internally for its agents. The second is the definition of the word "covert" in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the statute that someone might have violated by disclosing her work for the CIA.

They are NOT the same. The definition of "covert" in the act is very narrowly defined as an intelligence officer whose employment status is classified and who has served overseas in the last five years. This is different from the term "covert" as used day to day in the CIA, which is going to be much broader and less specific in actual practice.

The basic thing to understand is that Plame may well have been a "covert" agent for the CIA's purposes, but not a "covert" agent for the Act, and that folks are getting confused on this point.

The CIA stated for her hearing last week that Plame's employment status at the time of the Novak article was "covert" and that this was classified information. They were NOT using the definition in the act, however, only the meaning as the agency used it normally. This is the way Plame was using it at the hearing and she noted when questioned that she was not a lawyer (and so didn't know if she was legally covert under the Act).

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer involved in drafting the Act, who also was a witness at the hearing, was using the definition in the Act. She thinks Plame was not covert because she had not been stationed overseas in the last five years. Plame had been sent on temporary missions overseas during the past five years, however, and whether "having served overseas" means having been actually stationed overseas or just having been sent overseas is unclear and would have to be decided by a judge.

Having said all that, IMHO Plame may have met the definition of the Act, Patrick Fitzgerald certainly thought so. That her status had been revealed to Russian and Cuban intelligence doesn't really come into the Act's definition of covert, but would be important perhaps as evidence that the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the agent whose status is the basis for the prosecution, which would be a defense to any charge of outing.

However, we'll never know because Valerie's legal status would only be decided in a trial of someone for outing her, and that's not going to happen because Fitzgerald has apparently concluded that her outing was negligent, but not intentional, and therefore not a crime.

conservatives don't understand
you can't prosecute a case when one of the main targets is conspiring to cover it up.

and that is what libby did and that is what fitzgerald said.

but keep you head in the sand fellas.

the cia director appointed by bush doesn't know what he is talking about.
only conservatives with no knowledge of the truth know what they are talking about.

you can spin all you want but not one conservative can tell me the name of one person who had direct knowledge of plames status who has contradicted the fact she was covert.

no one in the white house or congress has ever denied it.

why do you think that is ?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.