Perhaps the most disappointing part of the fact that John Roberts’ nomination has bumped Karl Rove from the headlines is the fact that there have been so many important developments in the scandal in the last 24 hours.
* The State Department memo that discussed Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger and Plame’s role at the CIA, written before the Plame leak occurred, continues to be an integral part of the controversy. Questions about how Bush aides learned about Plame’s identity in the first place continuously turn back to this memo. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that this document “made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband’s intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn’t be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.”
The Journal added, “The memo’s details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn’t realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter.” Bingo.
* Murray Waas has a must-read update on the weakness and unreliability of Rove’s explanation for how and why he leaked Plame’s identity. Waas’ sources tell him, “White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.” Because the Rove-Cooper conversation was such a key development, this omission could should be construed as an attempt by Rove to mislead prosecutors.
Waas also reported that prosecutors are taking a skeptical attitude towards Rove’s claim that he first heard about Plame’s work at the CIA from a journalist, but couldn’t remember which one. He apparently later added that he wasn’t sure if it was even a journalist at all. I can’t imagine why anyone find this hard to believe; can you?
* Also important is a new letter from 11 former CIA and intelligence officials to congressional leaders from both parties that what happened to Plame is a “shameful event” that may have “damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources.”
The officials specifically took aim at Republican talking points that argue Plame’s identity was not an important secret that warranted protection.
These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who “work at a desk” in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.
While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation’s security.
We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame’s status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.
The 11 former intelligence officials added that Congress should speak “with one non-partisan voice on this issue.” The laughter from Republican leaders could be heard from outside the building.