Fair Game

Following interview with Valerie Plame is published in today's Guardian Unlimited. It provides additional information. I am appending it herein hoping it will interest the readers who are following up on Valerie Plame Wilson.

Mohammad Gill


________________________________________________

3.15pm BST / 11.15am ET

'We have a president who believes that if he does it, it's not illegal'

Valerie Plame, the CIA agent at the centre of the White House scandal that saw Lewis 'Scooter' Libby jailed, tells Michael Tomasky her side of the story.
Friday November 2, 2007

Guardian Unlimited
Listen to the full interview here.

Valerie Plame Wilson is the former covert CIA agent whose identity was revealed by Bush administration officials in an apparent attempt to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson, who had written critically about the administration's case for war.

She has now published her account of her career and of the odyssey, Fair Game (Simon & Schuster). So what is the truth about who sent her husband to Niger, her view on current controversies like Iran and the Fisa debate, and what of her new life in New Mexico?

Fair Game is your only chance to tell people your whole side of the story. What's the main thing that you want people to take away from it?

I think the most important thing is that this is a story of the consequences of speaking truth to power and how important it is for citizens to hold their government to account for their words and deeds. I've tried very hard to write honestly about my professional life as well as my personal life, and it's been a long time coming. It's been four and half crazy years.

Obviously, you wrote a lot that the CIA decided that you should not be publishing [large sections of the book were redacted in a pre-publication review by the CIA]. Were you surprised at the extent of the redactions?

Indeed I was, sure. When I joined the CIA like everyone else I signed a secrecy agreement, and I have fully upheld those responsibilities.

But as we went through the process it just became curiouser and curiouser, because the agency has taken the position that I am not permitted to acknowledge my agency affiliation prior to January 2002, despite all the information that's available out there in the public domain on my career, my background and so forth. So it became very evident to me that the vast majority of those redactions in the book have everything to do with further punitive action on behalf of this administration toward a critic and very little to do with actually protecting classified information.

Is there anything left for the public to learn about manipulation of pre-war intelligence? And if so, what, and will we ever learn it?

Hmmm, that's a really good question. I think the media is perhaps going through a period, I hope, of self-reflection, if that can be [true] of an entity. But looking at how they acted in the run-up to the war, there was very little shoe-leather worn out, I would say, trying to get other viewpoints - talking to mid level managers at the Pentagon and other places in Washington about postwar planning, the possibility of an insurgency, what exactly the invasion would mean other than what the administration spooned up for them.

So I think it behoves all of us, and certainly how important a free and vigorous press is to a democracy, to keep these lessons in mind as we move forward.

You write at length about how your husband was chosen to go to Niger, because that was a matter of some controversy as we know. And you credit the idea to a junior reports officer. And then you say that his or her words were twisted by the Senate intelligence committee staff in a report which was later picked up in the media, which created the confusion. Why did the committee do that in your view? Was it to protect the administration?

Oh I think absolutely. That's what the reports officer told me the day after the report was released. He came into my office, shut the door, sat down and almost burst into tears, saying "Val, I was the one who suggested Joe for this trip, don't you remember?" Which I had not until that point because it had been over two years.

And the most biased and twisted portion was contained in the additional views of that report, which was written by four Republican senators, which among other things they claimed that Joe's reporting actually convinced some analysts that this alleged sale had taken place. It was just a bizarre, preposterous notion.

And you write also that you weren't able to say to that reports officer that they should try to go back and correct the record because that could have been witness tampering. It must have been just maddening.

I didn't know frankly what to do or what to say. I felt frozen in many ways. He said that he was going to go back and ask if he could retestify, and he was not permitted to do so. A few days later he came with a memo he had which he laid out that I had nothing to do with Joe's trip or recommending him or suggesting him. And he showed it to me. I read it, and he took it back. In retrospect I wish I'd kept a copy of it but I was not thinking as clearly as you do in retrospect.

Did you ask him if you could name him in this book? Does he still work at the CIA?

To the best of my knowledge, and I certainly didn't ask him, but I understood that I could not name him. Unlike other senior administration officials, I actually get it.

Having now been dragged through the media sausage grinder, what percentage of what was written about you was accurate?

Hah! I'd hate to put a number on it because I really didn't read the really bad stuff, I don't think that is healthy. So who knows.

But I do know that the two biggest misconceptions are, one, that I was not covert. Which is nonsense. I was covert until the day that Mr [Robert] Novak wrote his column in July 2003. General Michael Hayden, CIA director, the judge in Mr Libby's trial, and the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald have all confirmed that I was covert.

Fitzgerald wrote that I was undertaking numerous trips overseas under a variety of aliases using a variety of covers in a cover operational capacity. So I'd like to put that one to bed. The other notion was I was really nothing more than a glorified secretary, which of course is maddening to say the least. I had worked and trained very hard. I was very proud to serve my country. I loved my career. And I had quite a bit of responsibility at the CIA.

If you ran into Bob Novak today what would you say to him?

[Laughs] Do you want the immature answer?

I suppose disappointingly I have to settle for the printable answer.

I think I would cross the sidewalk and keep going. I have nothing to say to him.

At one point in the book you write that you and Joe were beginning to hear rumblings that your name might be dragged into this after Novak's column appeared. And you also suggest in your book that someone at the CIA reassured you they would be able to prevent it as they had in the past. What happened in your case?

Because Mr Novak blithely ignored their warnings not to. He said later that it was a "soft" no, to which of course the only reply is which part of no do you not understand?

But I felt very anxious knowing that any reporter, anyone outside of who was authorised to know, had my name and cover identity. So it was a really fraught time.

Why do you think [Richard] Armitage leaked your name?

Well, he said it was gossip, which it may or may not have been. I don't want to characterise what it was because he is in fact named in our civil suit.

But what is clear is that he had worked in Washington for decades - at one point for the CIA - and he should have known better. He might not have known exactly where I was working at the CIA, but if you see someone's name and CIA, a red flag goes up, so he had no business... how foolish he was to go about gossiping to reporters.

And then of course some other people were not idly gossiping in your view.

You mean those in the White House? No, I don't think theirs was idle gossip. I'm just characterising it using terms that Mr Armitage used for his case.

I think what was going on in the White House was in fact a conspiracy as underscored by special prosecutor Fitzgerald's statements on that, saying he can't imagine any evidence that would disprove a conspiracy by a multitude of people in the White House to undermine and discredit Joe Wilson.

I want to ask about some things that are currently in the news. As you watch the things the administration is saying and doing about Iran, are you getting a creepy feeling of déjà vu?

Yeah terribly so. Who is that Yogi Berra, who said 'déjà vu all over again'?

Exactly how creepy?

Yeah [laughs]. It is clear that our international credibility, our political authority, our moral authority has been severely damaged by the missteps of this administration. Most notably in Iraq but there's many other examples. And as a consequence, Iran is in the catbird's seat without having to do very much. We've done all the work for them.

And I am deeply concerned by the sabre rattling by the vice-president and others that bombing is simply the answer. I believe we are a great nation, and great nations can afford to speak to even their enemies.

Does your gut tell you that we may be bombing Iran?

I don't know. I resigned from the CIA in January 2006, so I'm far away from any current intelligence. I think you just need to look at the track record of this administration to understand how seriously wrong they are all the time [laughs].

Another current affairs thing I want to ask about is the debate on Fisa (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) going on now in Congress. Do you think the 1978 law as written is adequate in the fight against terrorism, and what do you think of the changes the administration wants?

It is, I think, only prudent for me to address that issue based on my own experience. There were times when we needed to go to the Fisa court to request additional surveillance on a suspect, a target. And of course we had to submit our reasons why, why this was so critical. And I can tell you that I do not remember one case where we did not receive a positive answer in a very short period of time.

The administration claims that this is archaic, that it's outdated, it doesn't move fast enough. That has not been my experience. And I find that their argument to just sort of dispense with this, what they sort of characterise as useless warrants, to be suspect.

About the Democrats in Congress, are they putting up an adequate fight on this question in your view?

I haven't followed that closely enough to be able to give you the ins and outs on that, but I can just speak as a US citizen who is very concerned about the erosion of my civil liberties, and I do not trust this administration to keep a secret, if you know what I mean! And this sort of private information, I just think it is very troublesome.

Let me ask something related to that. Hillary Clinton said recently in an interview with me, I asked her, if elected would she consider giving up some executive power. She said that she would explore that, and she said it with some enthusiasm. Now she didn't get into specifics. But I'd like to ask you, what specific powers do you think the next president should relinquish?

Ah. Well, there's this unitary executive theory which has been propounded by conservative scholars, which essentially says we've been misreading the constitution all these many years, in fact there are not three coequal branches of government; the executive should have much more far-reaching powers than we have considered thus far.

And it is extremely dangerous. This is not a hot topic in a sense but it is one that is I think the most far-reaching of the many important issues we're grappling with today. Because right now essentially we have a president who believes, much like Dick Nixon, that if he does it then it's not illegal. And this extends into every area of domestic and international policy.

And I was very pleased to see those comments by Senator Clinton because she understands that whoever is in the White House today will be gone tomorrow. That is the nature of our domestic political system. And to have so much power accrued in the executive body is dangerous no matter who is in power at that time.

So you've moved to New Mexico. Is life back to normal?

No! [Laughs] But we're very happy there. It's been a very good move for our family. It's a beautiful part of the world.

Your children are how old now?

They're seven-and half. And Joe and I look forward to putting this behind us. We don't want this to define who and what we are. Having small children, we want to be able to live life in the present of course and with them.

And when they get a little bit older and understand better all the things that we have lived through these last few years, and if they ask us, well, you mean you knew this and you didn't say anything, we want to have a good answer for them. So we look forward to truly moving on we want to contribute again in some way, and I just don't know how yet.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

This is out of place article. He interested reader is looking for Pakistan and India centric things.

Here we go again, another nonsense tape recorderesque, book summarizing, non original, bs article by Gill, as he reaches newer and newer frontiers of worshipping the white man and all things "white". Both Bush and the Plames tried to milk the system to their advantage and to the detriment of the American people. This whole facade of the Valerie Plame issue was a major distraction and little else. Instead of crying over the death and destruction wrought on Iraq by the US power elite, these peons of the same elite, wonder how many people plame helped eliminate, are crying over being outted, in other words, the Iraqis are expendible but even our jobs are more important than a million of their lives. Who gives a F about what the CIA and its operatives consider moral, being the most immoral, absurdly impersonally sadistic organization that it is.

In fact Chowk staff banning me for exposing tahmed, is a greater outrage than anyone outing Valerie Plame....think about the morals behind both issues, the former represents the sentiments of the people, the latter the sentiments and immorality of the US elite

“It’s not easy to understand how an unpaid week interviewing ex-officials in the second-poorest country on earth could be construed as a boondoggle by even the most avid political operative, and the nepotism talking point did little to neutralize Joe Wilson’s fundamental and still-compelling claim: that the White House exaggerated the case for war to the American public.”

Gill Sahib this shows your naiveté. It was actually very easy to follow. You either don’t understand the political process or read too many democratic blogs. It was clearly a Junket specifically designed to embarrass the defense dept, the Vice president and the President. If you do a logic breakdown of the whole thing you will at a minimum come up with the following:

1. Why would the CIA send a person of known democratic leanings to investigate a major claim by the US President in the SOTU address?

2. The reason CIA did not pay Joe Wilson was also quite obvious. Any one who gets a paid CIA job has to sign a contract and that contract forces them to follow the CIA’s secrecy clauses on all matters and for all practical purposes they can not say any thing about the mission in public without first obtaining CIA’s permission. Similar to the rules that applied to Plame’s book.

3. Despite going on a CIA sponsored mission, Joe Wilson never signed any document to keep his mouth shut about the mission.

4. Wilson went to Niger for barely a day and never submitted any written report.

5. He only talked to the US ambassador and that was the end of his investigation. Any one in CIA could have done that by just picking up a secured phone and dialing the ambassador’s phone number.

I can cite more reasons but I would assume that you will now look for the other reasons yourself.

This all was enough for the VP to call his trip a junket or boondoggle and he was not wrong there.

You need to look at the whole affair as internal struggle between the CIA-State dept and the DoD over the control of the Iraq war. The CIA and the State dept clearly planned to embarrass the government and Joe Wilson was merely playing his part. Plame’s outing was a response by the VP office to the CIA. Just remember that after this incident a major power struggle broke out between the CIA and the DoD which eventually led to the President removing the CIA Chief and replacing him with his trusted man.

Instead of just following the news stories and the blogs, try and read between the lines and think about what is happening around you and don’t accept the words of a few journalists.

If you wanna continue to write about the political issues, I would recommend you develop some method for analyzing events and news accounts. Your current style shows that you have very little understanding of the political process.

Finally, I cannot believe that some people actually bought this junk book and read it too. Helping some Charity in Pakistan with that money could have been a worthy effort.

Re: # 4 Mr. Masadi... do not criticise any body by name. Doing that you are helping them to ban your thoughts. Do not cross guide lines and undefined boundaries which you can percive. This is request so people can get different view and commentary about events than just peons of Western Elites.

Masadi, my advice to you in this respect is to start publishing (or even copy/pasting) articles supporting gays and lesbians, and you will be honoured instead of being banned time & again.

Chowk-admin are gay/lesbian lifestyle campaigners. I don't think any doubt remains about that.

For the kanjars who thought that Jamia Hafsa should be stormed and Government 'writ' restored and all "Intiha Pasandi" will be over except a few sporadic bombings in some far-off border areas - will have smelled the coffee by now as within 3 months they have lost 'writ' over entire Waziristan plus half of the Swat Valley ...

Here's the latest update for the few Kanjars who can read Urdu. For the ones who can't, sorry:

http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20071103/Sub_Images/1100291753-1.j pg
http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20071103/Sub_Images/1100291753-2.gif

More to follow. Watch this space.

HP writes "Finally, I cannot believe that some people actually bought this junk book and read it too. Helping some Charity in Pakistan with that money could have been a worthy effort."

Just look at where this person is coming from and it will become very easy to believe why he did it. For him helping a Pak charity would be helping "inferiors", since he says he "discovered" his own humanity in the US for the very first time, he is merely reaffirming his "humanity" by helping fill the pockets of his gods with his hard earned money, hoping that by doing so he might brush off some of theirs, in other words, it makes him feel like them, being intersted in their elite BS....

Gill writes "The book was published by Simons and Schuster in 2007 and is dedicated to Joe."

The book is not dedicated to Joe, it is dedicated to the long tradition and culture of the US elite that pervades the entire society that of turning every human tradedy (like the Iraq war) and every personal, family intimacy into a money making enterprise. In other words, by writing this book Valerie Plame has whored herself following the best traditon of the American elite....

In #10 read "every human tradedy ", as "every human tragedy"

Emergency has been declared in Pakistan, all private media channels have been taken off air. The military has taken over the courts and is deployed all across Karachi and Islamabad. Musharraf has gone against US wishes and preempted their marital law, he will now be deposed by the new army chief if not taken out by a US missile...

like Zia ul Fcuk's time, PTV is ruling the media airwaves....

HP: #5

Political truths are not always as certified and credible as the scientific truths, Invariably there are at least two sides to a political event. I try to keep my mind open. I absorb various views of a political event in which I am interested and try to sort out what seems reasonable. The views you have expressed are the other side of the coin. The author has also described these dissident views in her book.
However, the subsequent events did prove that Wilson's report of the touted Iraq-Niger deal was correct. He was in Niger not for one day but at least a week.

At one place in the book (page 169), the author wrote, "The fact was however that I neither suggested Joe nor recommended him. There was no ulterior motive. I did not have the authority to send Joe to Niger or anywhere else, even if I had wanted to."

I wrote a review of the book reflecting the author's story as was described by her, without interjecting my personal views into it. You've every right to consider it a junket but at least read it before you do so. The book is very read-worthy in spite of heavy redations.

I do appreciate your feedback; at least it pertains to the subject matter of the article. Thanks and with regards,

Mohammad Gill

Gill writes "I wrote a review of the book reflecting the author's story as was described by her, without interjecting my personal views into it"

If you put your "personal views" into it, at least we would know you have a mind of your own rather than being a tape recorderesque summarizer of the rote type of education. On the other hand you did put some mind into it taking sides with one against the other (using others popular arguments) when both are damn criminals.

Regarding my criticism not dealing with the article, of course they do, they unmask the peon who sees his humanity by enslaving himself to others. Once people understand that they can deconstruct your (and Sohails) mass produced articles...

Re: # 14
What do you say Mohammad?
How much $$ Valerie might have received from publishers of the book.? Take a gusess!

Kamath