Whitehouse leaked so & so's name...


PDA






Bigjake
October 7, 2003, 12:02 AM
Last week the media had its panties in a tiff over a supposed leak of names to the media of some agent guys wife, anybody have an article or any evidence to support that?? is it true or just another big tinfoil conspiracy??

If you enjoyed reading about "Whitehouse leaked so & so's name..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FPrice
October 7, 2003, 12:05 AM
The wife was the agent. The husband was a diplomat. IIRC it was Robert Novak who published the name and refuses to name his source(s). Apparently the husband was critical of the Iraq war and has claimed that the WH leaked his wife's name in order to get back at him. Lots of accusations but no solid lead yet that i am aware of.

Bigjake
October 7, 2003, 12:10 AM
ah, thanks. BTT. still curious what the rest of you think on this, its going to be a topic of discusion at school tomorow.

Bigjake
October 7, 2003, 12:16 AM
The reason i ask, is you get a very broad oppinion spectrum on this board, and with the said diversity it gives me some idea of what the rest of you think and of what others in my gov't class might think. the class itself is a joke and is really just a free for all more than a discussion, and with that, i do better hearing thoughts and arguements ahead of time, so i can think on em! ;) unfair? definatly :evil:

Parker Dean
October 7, 2003, 12:45 AM
I have heard reports that Novak has stated that his source was NOT from the White House and that the info was revealed during an interview.

Neither condition sounds like what has the Left in (hypocritical) hysterics but you know how it is.

ojibweindian
October 7, 2003, 10:11 AM
There was a statement posted on Drudge, made by Novak, that the information did not come from White House sources.

My opinion is that the person disclosing the name of the operative is a murderous traitor and should be hanged.

Khornet
October 7, 2003, 10:28 AM
still unclear whether this was an "undercover' person or a desk-jockey analyst at Langley. Definitley clear that a guy whose wife is an undercover agent and wants to keep it that way shouldn't publish a big editorial in the NYT attacking tha administration. And it appears that Ms. Plame's occupation was pretty common knowledge in DC already, and that someone at CIA told Novak about her when asked how an anti-Bush partisan was selected for the Niger inquiry.

So we don't even know whether somebody uncovered somebody, much less who done it. But we do know that the Left has suddenly begun to care about the welfare of America's covert agents.

DaveB
October 7, 2003, 12:34 PM
It's not in any way unclear what she did for the CIA. She ran a network of agents reporting on weapons of mass destruction and efforts to sell them. That network is now at risk. Whoever did it is a traitor.

Keep in mind that Wilson was not "an anti-Bush partisan" until he outed the prez for lying about the Niger Uranium purchase documents in the SOTU.

As for your comment about the left "suddenly caring", if you think that Bush or the right has an exclusive on patriotism, you're offensive as well as incorrect.

Try to imagine baby bush as prez during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We'd all have been living in caves for the last 40 years.

db

atk
October 7, 2003, 01:41 PM
DaveB,

I have heard several conflicting reports on several radio programs about what Ms. Novak's position was, ranging from under cover operative, to analyst, to managing multiple operatives. Could you please cite your sources that make her position so clear?

Thanks,
atk

Andrew Rothman
October 7, 2003, 01:56 PM
The reason i ask, is you get a very broad oppinion spectrum on this board

Snort.

Conservative, arch-conservative, reactionary conservative, and DaveB. :D

Matt

DaveB
October 7, 2003, 02:05 PM
I''ll try to find something that those here will take seriously.

Google:

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/073003.aspx
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/7510354p-8452342c.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-04.htm
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-cialeak-gallery,0,7117365.storygallery?coll=ny-news-print
http://truthout.org/docs_03/100203D.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/10/Perspective/Blown_cover.shtml

I'll stop at 9. I couldn't find anything from newsmax...

db

Bill Hook
October 7, 2003, 02:08 PM
I''ll try to find something that those here will take seriously.

Well, then I'd suggest not linking commondreams.org or CNN.

DaveB
October 7, 2003, 02:11 PM
Well newsmax and fox aren't saying much,

so do your own search. :scrutiny:

db

Waitone
October 7, 2003, 02:14 PM
1>The law specifically requires covert activities to apply. IIRC it can not be applied willey-nilley. Only specific jobs are permitted coverage.

2>We still don't know what she did for the CIA. An analyst ain't covert.

3>Wilson published his wife's name and occupation in a Who's Who listing.

4>Wilson is a screaming democrat who has vowed to bring down the Whitehouse.

5>Wilson and his wife has publically speculated who will play their parts when they land a movie deal.

6>The guy who published her name, Novak, did so in mid-July. He also has said repeatedly that no one from the WH outted the lady.

7>Wilson accused Karl Rove as being the outter in the whitehouse. He later retracted the claim.

8>Wilson went to Nigre to see if the claims of Iraqi buying yellowcake were valid. He was a diplomat, not and investigator. He admitted to sitting in the hotel for 8 days drinking tea. When this story broke it was reported Wilson was selected by VP Cheney for the mission. Cheney denies the story. No one seems to know who selected Wilson for the trip to Nigre.

A truly weird story.

ojibweindian
October 7, 2003, 03:19 PM
Khornet

If she's not a covert operative and is, instead, a desk jockey, then I will retract my statement in my last post.

I would also say that it's tough doody for her and her husband.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2003, 03:29 PM
ah, thanks. BTT. still curious what the rest of you think on this, its going to be a topic of discusion at school tomorow.

Instead of my opinion which is probably not worth much, how about the opinion of the ranking REPUBLICAN member of the senate intelligence committee?

He was on Meet the Press this week and he said:

1) This leak was a critical matter of national security which needed to be investigated immediately and fully.

2) The republicans who are claiming it's all "politics" should sit down and shut up, because it's a real crime and needs to be addressed as such.

3) The fed government should provide the agent with protection because she is probably in increased personal danger.

Incidentally, that is also my opinion. The deafening silence on the republican side following this public statement is probably for obvious reasons. No doubt the dems want to make political hay out of it, but the point is that it is a serious crime.

atk
October 7, 2003, 03:30 PM
DaveB,

Thank you for citing the sources.

I read through a bunch of them, and it does appear that she was an operative. Of course, if we're to believe the "vast left wing conspiracy" theory, do you know of any press releases from the CIA indicating what she did/does?


As far as:so do your own search goes, you are the one trying to prove something, not me. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide proof, not upon me to provide disproof. If I (or anyone else) wish to rebut your comments, then, yes, I'm sure we'll do our own search.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2003, 03:31 PM
If she's not a covert operative and is, instead, a desk jockey, then I will retract my statement in my last post.

It was confirmed that she was a covert op by the members from the intelligence committee on that same Meet the Press show.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2003, 03:33 PM
I read through a bunch of them, and it does appear that she was an operative. Of course, if we're to believe the "vast left wing conspiracy" theory, do you know of any press releases from the CIA indicating what she did/does?

Guys... they have acknowledged she was a covert operative... and that blowing her cover put her at risk.

Isn't it kind of silly to think the CIA is going to release specifics on what she does there? remember... this is the CIA.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2003, 03:39 PM
7>Wilson accused Karl Rove as being the outter in the whitehouse. He later retracted the claim.

NOPE. Wilson was also on meet the press. He stopped saying that Rove was the INITIAL leak because he learned that the leak occurred twice about a week apart. His info shows that Rove was in the "second wave" and had said something to the effect of "Her name is out now so she's fair game." Wilson said his source said Rove then supplied the info to several papers to give the story momentum, and accelerate it's spread.

Wilson still maintains Rove leaked the story, just does not say he was the first to do it. Technically, that may get Rove off the hook from prosecution. Or, he may get nailed as part of the whole thing. Time will tell who did what and who gets a stay at Club Fed.

Khornet
October 7, 2003, 04:37 PM
that she was covert. Like Johnson: "She was undercover for three decades." Pretty early start, since she's only 40.

The other articles furnish no PROOF that she was undercover, they just flatly call her covert. But the CIA won't say either way. Not that they should, but folk, honestly, that means we still don't know whether she was a covert agent. And if she ever was, was it less than 5 years ago, as the law states it must be to be in violation? She's got twins who are, what, 3 years old now? Doubt she was in a dangerous spook job any more recently than 4 years ago at least.

As with all the other controversies about the Bush admin, we have a whole lotta folks who've already passed sentence before we have any real testimony. It never changes.

And yes, DaveB, concern for CIA operatives IS a new experience for the Left. Just look at how they've hobbled our intelligence going back to the Carter days. The 'don't you dare question my patriotism' rejoinder is beneath you. You can do better than that.

ARperson
October 7, 2003, 05:00 PM
about the opinion of the ranking REPUBLICAN member of the senate intelligence committee

A name would have been nice to go along with his ranking.

As for his comments, I never take anything people say on Meet the Press except for a small group of people, and there are no politicians in that group.

It makes sense that someone would say a leak is a matter of national security. What's he going to say, "Yeah, we blew the bitch's cover. Tough luck for her. But it wasn't us, really?"

It IS all about politics for the Dems because that's all it ever is to them.

If she's in increased personal danger because her name was leaked, her husband should have thought of that before he spilled her name and occupartion years ago.

My guess: since the reporter has stated his source is NOT the WH, it's probably a CIA flunky who thought he'd be big and important by name dropping. Wouldn't be surprised if it's the janitor who cleans her office at night! :rolleyes:

Khornet
October 7, 2003, 05:51 PM
Why hasn't anyone from CIA or other executive branch function come out and said, officially and publicly, whether Plame was a covert operator? I can understand a policy of 'neither confirm nor deny', but now the cat (if there is one) is out of the bag, so why not clear it up?

Dave, I checked all your links. There is no statement resembling any such declaration, just a bunch of anonymous sources, and half the links are frankly partisan editorials. Now I like a frankly partisan editorial as much as the next guy (though probably not the kind you like), but an opinion piece is just that-opinion. So far I haven't come across any official statement about what this lady's job was.

Maybe, if she was undercover, admitting it now would compromise other persons or operations somehow. But they've got to be compromised already by this hubbub. I don't get it. Something has a strong piscatorial bouquet.

Ojibway, I failed to acknowledge your gracious reply. I wasn't asking you to retract anything, just pointing out a few things.

DaveB
October 7, 2003, 05:52 PM
It IS all about politics for the Dems because that's all it ever is to them.

Now, that's the funniest thing I've read here in months. :D I think I wet myself.



So far I haven't come across any official statement about what this lady's job was.

When was the last time that the CIA publically identified any of their own operatives?

Why does it matter, anyway? Whoever passed her job description to the media was not trying to be helpful. They were trying to get her husband to shut up or, failing that, they were making a not-so-subtle threat against anyone, of any position, who might criticize them in public.

"If we can't get to you, we'll get your family..."

To see it as anything else is to be looking out of one's own belly button.

It's amazing to watch "Patriots" defend the indefensible.

db

Sergeant Bob
October 7, 2003, 05:55 PM
ARperson If she's in increased personal danger because her name was leaked, her husband should have thought of that before he spilled her name and occupartion years ago.
Do you have any links for that info? Not doubting it, just couldn't find it on my own and would like to know more about it.

ARperson
October 7, 2003, 07:59 PM
Do you have any links for that info? Not doubting it, just couldn't find it on my own and would like to know more about it.

No, sorry. Regrettably, I have to admit to nothing more than hearsay on this one. But I have heard it from two different sources that weren't related. One said that the husband published this info in his biography or some such book. One of the sources I usually find credible enough to believe on the surface (though never taken as Gospel truth), the other I don't know from Adam. Just thought it curious that both said the same thing.

Chris Rhines
October 7, 2003, 08:44 PM
First off, the wife is not an agent. She is an officer. Agents (assets) are foreign nationals who are paid for information.

Second, it is still not clear whether she was an undercover officer. Probably, she was not (and it would be a simple matter to find out, as the majority of CIA overseas employees are declared openly.) If she was undercover, odds are overwhelming that she was operating under State cover (pretending to be a State Dept. employee), being as how she was married to a State Department diplomat. I would be amazed if she were actually working under non-offical cover, as at least one source has claimed.

Third, we still don't have much of a clue what her job description was, but I doubt strongly that she was running agent networks, for the simple reason that the CIA doesn't run agents anymore. It is whispered in some circles that the DO never ran an agent that wasn't a walk-in, and I tend to believe them.

So, a weird situation, at best. It's questionable how much threat this officer was actually exposed to, if any. Still and all, whoever leaked her status broke a contract, and as such needs to be drummed out toot sweet. What I can't figure out is why. If the Bush administration wanted to punish a dissenting voice (and I don't for a second put it past those twits) why not just re-assign him to Iceland and be done with it?

Strange stuff...

- Chris

ACP
October 7, 2003, 09:31 PM
Wow. The conservative Bush double standard raises its ugly head again. If this was the Clinton administration and George Stephanpoulos was named as a potential leaker, you'd be calling for his head on a platter and for Clinton's impeachment. Instead, we just figure Bush is TOO STUPID to know what's going on.

Flynt
October 7, 2003, 11:51 PM
The CIA formally requested the Dept. Of Justice to consider this a criminal matter.

DaveB
October 13, 2003, 02:55 PM
Funny piece from http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp10112003.html

...Let us recap:

Bush's people, and I use the word 'people' loosely, decided to make the CIA take the fall for the one canard out of several thousand that a slumbering nation happened to catch on its way into the swamps of the Mesopotamian desert in the name of anti-terrorism. This canard also happened to be one of the few that the CIA specifically suggested Bush not espouse as an excuse for his little camping trip to hell, so we have a painful insult/injury compound already, vis-*-vis the CIA.

Shortly thereafter, same Bush people, in a moment of good-natured backstabbing retribution, exposed one of the CIA's own assets, and by extension all the other assets to which she can be connected by a reasonably bright foreign intelligence agency with access to a telephone. I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that an agency willing to overthrow the government of Guatemala in the name of banana imports ought to have no problem saying "screw you right back" to a bunch of venal, inbred frat boys blundering their way through their last terms in public office.

You don't play dirty tricks on the folks who invented them. Expect events in the next few months to get very interesting as political revelations start to occur at the most embarrassing moments, policy notions don't get properly cooked intelligence to back them up, and personal secrets float into public view for no apparent reason, drifting down the cloaca publicum to the delight of scandal-mongers everywhere. The CIA has officially been dicked with...

db

TexasVet
October 14, 2003, 02:47 AM
Well, as the ranting raged on TV, every reporter I saw interviewed about it said that, "well, yeah, we all knew she was CIA for years." Seems to be a typical tempest in a teapot.

Khornet
October 14, 2003, 08:05 AM
is a comment from some official that her cover was blown by Aldrich Ames, and she was recalled from any 'covered' work......in 1994.

DaveB, you may or may not have a point. I may or may not have one either. But if your sources are places like counterpunch, your point needn't be taken seriously. That's like citing an editorial as data.....come to think of it, that's what your links were.

To review, we have a man whose wife is CIA. He keeps it shady by attacking the administration on the hottest issue of the day....in an editorial in the NYT. Which will naturally lead to inquiries about who he is, who he's married to, etc. A man who in fact has been a Dem partisan all along, not just after his trip to Niger.

And when he made his big play in the NYT, people (e.g. Novak) naturally wanted to know how he was selected for his mission. What qualified him? How did he get chosen? And one of Novak's sources said his wife was CIA. A fair answer to a fair question, hardly the deliberate outing people claim.

I'd say if Plame really was at risk, CIA would never have let her husband go on the Niger mission. If she really was at risk, a good husband would have never made himself a big public figure. I say Wilson and CIA outed her, either carelessly or in some calculated manner. Relations are strained between the Admin. and CIA, and many in CIA appear opposed to Bush doctrine. It looks like they tried to trip Bush up and wound up with egg on their faces.

That's a more dispassionate analysis, starting from the premise of asking how and why would all the players do what they did, instead of from the premise that Bush stinks and therefore whatever was done was a dleiberate Bush dirty trick.

w4rma
October 14, 2003, 08:59 AM
CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=135657

Rice 'Knew Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday she knew "nothing of any" White House effort to leak the identity of an undercover CIA officer in July, a charge now under review at the Justice Department.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, the top aide to President Bush said, "This has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that is the appropriate place for it."

Rice said the White House would cooperate should the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, decide to proceed with a criminal investigation of the matter, which centers on the alleged public disclosure of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030928/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_probe_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=136932

A White House smear

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security—and break the law—in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

The sources for Novak’s assertion about Wilson’s wife appear to be “two senior administration officials.” If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what’s known as “nonofficial cover” and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson’s wife is such a person—and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her—her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a “pattern of activities” to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson’s wife and had no reluctance about naming her. “I figured if they gave it to me,” he says. “They’d give it to others....I’m a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it’s accurate. I generally use it.” And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.

http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823
http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/07/23/3f1f5fa79c206
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18072&mesg_id=18072&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5913&mesg_id=5913&page=


Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his “two senior administration officials” told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia0722,0,2346857.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=2326&mesg_id=2326&page=

A War on Wilson?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18113&mesg_id=18113&page=

White House striking back?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/942095.asp?0cv=CA01

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030724/ap_on_go_ot/schumer_agent_1

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia233384176jul23,0,5461415.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives by John W. Dean
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

bountyhunter
October 14, 2003, 07:26 PM
Amidst all the democrtats crying "bias" in the case of the Justice Department investigating the White House... given that Bush appointed the leader of the J.D....... Bush opens his big mouth last week and declares publicly that he believed the identity of the leak would never be revealed. Seriously... and he apparrently had no clue how that would make people react (?)

Honestly... you just couldn't write stuff that funny.

And on top of that, the promised "full cooperation" of the white house with the investigation is manifested when they notified the JD that all surrendered documents would first be screened by the White House Counsel (LAWYER) before the JD could look at them. Next time the police come to your house with a warrant looking for something, don't open the door but tell them that you and your lawyer will look through the house and give them whatever is applicable (HONEST!).... but it will take a week. That should make them go away (?)


I'd be rolling on the floor laughing if it wasn't a case of a bunch of people who run my country not even bothering to tell me BELIEVABLE lies... kind of insulting.

w4rma
October 15, 2003, 12:56 AM
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40012-2003Oct3.html

Some historical context:

4. There is no doubt, however, that this is the course the State Department are, in fact, following. Hoover said that he had spoken to Brewster Jennings, President of Socony-Vacuum, and persuaded him to maintain his company's level of imports at approximately their 1954 level by cutting back imports from the Middle East, while maintaining the planned programme of increased imports from Canada. In the short run this decision would involve some financial sacrifice for Socony-Vacuum both because of the low cost of crude oil from the Middle East and the high profits to be gained from its exploitation. However, Hoover had found that Socony-Vacuum put such a high value for the future on their Canadian interests that Jennings did not need much persuasion to agree to the method of implementing the policy of voluntary restriction that Hoover had suggested.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=1446

bountyhunter
October 15, 2003, 05:33 PM
A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

And the contacts she had with field agents (those the CIA employs who are citizens of other countries) will be "interviewed" and then quietly slaughtered. That really is the point: the total damage both in intelligence lost and field agents killed can never possibly be known.

If you enjoyed reading about "Whitehouse leaked so & so's name..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!