Today, Wolf Blitzer promoted another falsehood, more serious than many, about Joe and Valerie Wilson. Blitzer floated the notion that two of Wilson’s own defenders in the intelligence community have said that, in posing for the Vanity Fair photo [LEFT], he and Valerie risked her former contacts.
Speaking to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson today on CNN’s Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer said:
BLITZER: [S]ome of your supporters were on this program last week — Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer; Pat Lang, a former DIA intelligence analyst [Blitzer assigned Lang the wrong job title; see correct info below fold].
BLITZER CONTINUES: They say your decision and your wife’s decision to let her be photographed represented a major mistake because, if there were people out there who may have been endangered by her name, certainly when people might have seen her picture, they could have been further endangered.
First, what did Larry and Pat actually say to Wolf? Second, by posing for the photo, did Valerie Plame endanger any of her contacts she’d met through the CIA front company, Brewster Jennings?
Larry Johnson was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on Oct. 26:
BLITZER: Were you surprised that, after her name was revealed, that she posed for pictures, that famous picture in “Vanity Fair,” that she posed for pictures elsewhere … a lot of people have suggested [that] this was no big deal…. [L]ook at her. She’s sort of flaunting it.
JOHNSON: Yes. With the benefit of hindsight, I don’t think Joe and Valerie would have done that again.
But they also recognized, at the time when they did it, her career had been completely destroyed. … (Crooks & Liars has the video.)
So, today, did Wolf convey what Johnson said to him last week? No.
And what did Pat Lang say on Oct. 27?
The chain of circumstances that led to that is an unfortunate thing. It in fact ruined the possibility of ever using her as a field operative again, that’s absolutely true. (Crooks & Liars video)
That’s all that Lang said about the photo. Not quite the same thing as saying she’d endangered her contacts, is it?
In that photo [UPPER LEFT], Valerie Wilson is sitting behind her husband, wearing large sunglasses and a scarf. And, as Wilson told Blitzer today, the real damage had already been done:
WILSON: Her contacts and her network was endangered the minute that Bob Novak wrote the article. The photograph of her did not identify her in any way anybody could identify.
Now you asked me this question — you’ve asked me this question three or four times…
BLITZER: About the photograph?
WILSON: About the photograph.
Now, I have never heard you ask the president about the layout in the Oval Office when they did the war layout. I’ve never heard you ask Mr. Wolfowitz about the layout in Vanity Fair. But you ask me all the time.
So let me just get this very clear: When one is faced with adversity, one of the ways one acts in the face of adversity is to try and bring a certain amount of humor to the situation. It’s called irony.
And if people have no sense of humor or no sense of perspective on that, my response is: It’s about time to get a life.
But in no way did that picture endanger anybody. What endangered people was the outing of her name –her maiden name — and, subsequently, the outing of the corporation that she worked for. … continued below:
I bet that Blitzer was channeling the scuttlebutt he’s heard around D.C. about the photo, and that he failed to recall — and failed to review — last week’s interviews before he talked to Wilson today. He misquoted both of his guests last week. He owes them an apology and, in my opinion, an opportunity to return to his show to correct his errors.
BLITZER: So you don’t have any regrets about the Vanity Fair picture?
WILSON: I think it’s a great picture. I think someday you will, too.
BLITZER: It’s a great picture. But I mean the fact that…
WILSON: I think someday it, too, will be in the International Spy Museum.
BLITZER: But you don’t think it was a mistake to do that?
WILSON: No.
BLITZER: OK.
Emphases mine.
Update [2005-11-1 9:53:5 by susanhu]: Here, Blitzer misidentifies Pat Lang’s actual position in the DIA — bumping him down the chain:
BLITZER: [S]ome of your supporters were on this program last week — Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer; Pat Lang, a former DIA intelligence analyst. They say your decision and your wife’s decision to let her be photographed represented a major mistake because, if there were people out there who may have been endangered by her name …
In fact, Lang ran all of DIA’s functions in the Middle East at for seven years and then was head of HUMINT collection world wide for another two years.
Here are Pat’s and Larry’s bios:
……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism” for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including PBS’s Newshour, and most recently on MSNBC’s Hardball and NPR’s “All Things Considered.”.
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib <a href="Posts
Novel: The Butcher’s Cleaver (download free by chapter, PDF format)
“Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. XI, Summer 2004, No. 2
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world. Further bio details
I’ve been musing about this, and I have to admit I’m not sure. What is the real offense here, admitting that Valerie Wilson, wife of Joe Wilson works at the CIA, or that Valerie Plame, employee of Brewster Jennings is the wife of Joe Wilson and works at the CIA?
Because I could see how Valerie might have had “just an analyst job” on one hand as Valerie Wilson, which wasn’t technically covert, but also been NOC with Brewster Jennings at the same time (which was very much covert, and where the real damage is done).
Isn’t it very possible that her Brewster Jennings Business contacts only knew here as Valerie Plame and had no idea she was married? I mean, one could live a double life that way. You hear stories of people not in the CIA having multiple families and all that all the time.
Joe also seems to imply that divulging her maiden name, Plame was a big no-no. What if Libby and Rove never used the name Valerie Plame?
I’m just curious, because it may speak to a potential defense that Libby and Rove might use to get off on a (seemingly) technicality.
I’m not sure what you’re discussing here — the testimony of the various principals cited in the indictment?
Joe Wilson today was talking about Novak’s column, which said:
As of July 14, 2003, the date of this column, her cover was blown.
Let me first preface this by saying this is a legitimate inquiry I have. I very much believe that there was a coordinated effort by Libby and others to out Plame and smear Joe Wilson, it’s just that Fitz can’t prove it yet. So I’m not trying to parrot right-wing talking points when I bring this up. Rather, I’m trying to understand why more charges weren’t brought immediately, and I wonder if it has to do with the manner in how the leak was executed (not just the fact that a NOC’s cover was blown). While it sucks that the “devil’s in the details” on this case, the law is the law, and it is designed the way it is to both protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
In any case, what I’m speaking to, is if defense attorneys can prove that Rove and Libby were merely passing along a rumor “that they heard” Valerie was a CIA operative and that she may have had a hand in sending her husband to Niger to journalists such as Cooper, Russert, Miller, and Pincus, and those journalists in their professional opinion believed these rumors too unsubstantiated to commit to print, then that may fail to rise to a prosecutorial offense under IIPA, because the receiver has to have recieved information that “…the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent.” In other words, if the journalists believed this was rumor, and not verifiable fact, then they couldn’t possibly have received information identifying Valerie Plame as covert. It’s a shade of grey. Obviously, the open and shut case would be “hey Valerie Wilson works for the CIA, and guess what, she’s a covert agent!”
To me, the crux of the case on IIPA revolves around whether or not the information disclosed by Libby and Rove positively identifies her relationship as a covert agent. For example, Cooper says he may have found her name by googling her. Did the information from Google also indicate that she was tied to Brewster Jennings? (thereby blowing her cover) Or was it just a picture of Valerie and Joe together (which is easy to find)?
The other essential part to me with regards to IIPA is who gave the name Valerie Plame to Novak? Or did Novak also get the info from Scooter about “Wilson’s wife” and then on his own, without access to classified info, discovered Valerie Wilson = Valerie Plame? That’s where she was outed to the public at large. Plame is positively associated with Brewster Jennings (I’m not sure that Valerie Wilson is). If Valerie took extraordinary measures to conceal her maiden name, then why couldn’t she use it as an alias for a covert identity? And if that’s true, then her maiden name should be classified information.
My point is that the case against Rove and Libby may ultimately be nothing about IIPA, but rather the Espionage act or as the first chinks in conspiracy charges to out a covert agent. Conspirators may not necessarily themeselves have to commit the crime, but must have been in on the planning of the crime and involved in executing it.
The problem is, as Fitz said, with Libby’s testimony it’s just impossible to tell what exactly was said to reporters, even if they testify truthfully. And you have absolutely no idea what was said to co-conspirators by Libby, because you don’t have anyone to rebut his testimony, and as an alleged obstructor and perjurer, his testimony is unreliable in any case. So Libby is ruined as a witness, and thus makes prosecuting his higher ups very very difficult without flipping other co-conspirators.
I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of this offense, that scumbag Novak is just as culpable in my mind (if not in the eyes of the law, then as a person lacking basic ethics and morals) as Rove and Libby are. Clearly other reporters were more careful in how they dealt with the information they received, Novak should have been as well. And if there’s any evidence out there that Novak consulted with Rove, Libby, or any admin officials about how to word his column (which he may have given that Rove (oops, “official A”) positively knew that Novak was writing a column about Valerie Plame), then his ass better be hauled off to jail too.
The key here, is as Fitz said, that justice is served by charging and convicting these criminals with offenses suitable to the seriousness of the crime. While they may not be IIPA given the strict requirements of that statute, I don’t really care, as long as a message is sent to political operatives that outing a CIA agent, who is valiantly putting his or her life on the line for YOUR safety and YOUR country’s security, as a means to execute political vendettas is NOT to be tolerated and WILL have serious repercussions.
So forgive me if I’m indulging too much in the niceties of the law (even though IANAL), I am just as indignant as anyone else here, I just am interested in the truth and the strategies being used to send these guys up the river. And the political consequences thereof.
There is no legitimate argument against the simple and incontrovertible fact that Plame was an NOC CIA operative at the time of her public outing by rthe scurrilous shitbag Novak. The Vanity Fair photo was after her cover was blown, after the damage was already done.
I hope Libby’s attorney tries to get away with using this absurd claim as a central facet of his defense because it will blow up in his face.
Hay Wolf, if you don’t have a real story, make one up! But at least he can say that it’s an exclusive.
The speed with which Blitzer is racing towards making himself irrelevant is constantly increasing.
He’s so full of himself now, he’s so much his own biggest fan now, that he’s become incapable of behaving as a responsible journalist.
I realize now, after having had no powerforalmost a week due to the hurricane in Florida, how little information is reallyconveyed by cable TV news media.
I get more insightful and accurate news in acoupleofhourson the internet than I get in a week oflistenng to TV cable news.
It’s a national embarrassment when you think about it; how terribly uninformative and misinformative the MSM in this country really is.
Sorry for all the typos; I hit post instead of preview first.
CAFFERTY is better than him.
I saw the interview with Wilson. Blitzer is a GOoper talking-points mule.
Wilson has been straight-up trying not to personalize this thing (although the guy does have issues with BushCo). He definitely has been saying that this is a serious breach of national security and that the 1982 law (passed under Reagan’s watch, mind you) cuts both ways, for whistleblowing extreme lefties or for winger extremists as well.
The more air time Wilson gets about this issue, the more people are finally going to GET IT. Especially that the buck doesn’t even stop at Libby or Cheney. It stops at Bush.
😉
n/t
you didn’t think his mama sat there and said, oh what a pretty little baby boy. I think I’ll name him Wolf.
What’s Blitzer’s agenda? How does he frame/distill the news? Who is he spinning for?
If you said ISRAEL, you are correct, ma’am.
Blitzer used to work for AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It’s a bit more apparent, now, why he’s been so sympathetic to neo-con don Israel L. Libby, isn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer
He worked from the script given him by the writers. They knew just what they could get away with, to send out the impression they wanted — that Valerie took her covert status casually.
Newspeak.
The lie is the truth.
that Valerie took her covert status casually.
That’s a great way of describing what he was conveying.
Bastards.
(Granted, it wasn’t the best thing to pose for that photo because it gave the ‘wingers an easy way to attack the Wilsons … and they do look like a rather affluent couple flaunting their Jaguar, etc. Oh well … I do believe Wilson’s explanation that they found the whole thing ironic.
I’m not sure why he thinks the photo will be in the Spy Museum someday …. that intrigues me.
I find no fault with the Wilsons doing that photo. After all, they’ve both worked for decades in the service of their/our country.
Why should they hide or otherwise temper seek to reduce their notable status just for the sake of keeping their unpatriotic, warmongering wingnut attackers from going on the offensive. They have nothing to be ashamed of or to apologize for, and I’m glad they made themselves visible, rather than hiding in the shadows.
Plame may be the first spy outed by the major players in her own governments executive branch. Hence, the Spy Museum thing
Man did Wolf diminish himself in that interview. From now on I will call him the chiuahua
It’s too bad because his interview of Larry last week was pretty good … the link to that transcript is above.
P.S. Jon Stewart is making FUN of Fitz! Oh, that calls for retaliation! 🙂
Good. I had to take my puppie for her walk, so I taped it.During my walk I was thinking hbnow about we google bomb wolf Blitzer so when anyone googles his name it shows up Chihuahua Blitzer?
I’m too innocent to know how to “Google bomb” or — in this instance — “Google blitz” Wolfie. But perhaps you’ve planted a seed. Someone who does know how will read your post, and be inspired.
The way to do it is just like the HTLM link
every time you clik on my signature, it will take you to my post, and after a while, it will be up in the first thing to show up in Google.
Google my name Nicolas de Koenigsberg
It dissapeared : ()
Sorry 🙁
< a href=”()” >()< /a > That s all there is too it. You can do tons of stuff with it. Promote Booman Tribune as BEST PROGRESIVE BLOG, lIBBY IS A TRAITOR, etc, etc 🙂
PS thanks for the link, saw it before I left and Larry was great.
On October 26 2005, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Larry Johnson former CIA agent. In that interview, Wolf diminished himself so much that now he has been renamed CHIHUAHUA BLITZER
done
done
That clown Blitzer actually refers to Bill Kristol and Chucky Kraut Hammer as “mainstream conservatives.” Is there an honest bone in Blitzer’s body?
Thanks for the link to Larry’s interview as I had missed it. He creams Wolfie big time. I hope he continues to speak out for the Wilson’s and calling these bastards what he almost said in that interveiw, useless. Go back and listen to it again. He says, Use…government officials that outed her.
I think describing this as “a falsehood” is a little extreme. Some of this is open to interpretation.
On October 26 2005, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Larry Johnson former CIA agent. In that interview, Wolf diminished himself so much that now he has been renamed CHIHUAHUA BLITZER
WE’VE BEEN…NEOCONNEDAGAIN.
Not only did Wolf Blitzer work for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),but he also reported for the ultra-conservative Jerusalem Post. Who does he speak for now, the American people? LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer