House Oversight Hearing with Valerie Plame / SWITCHED 1100-1200
VALERIE PLAME
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee holds a hearing
with Valerie Plame Wilson, Mark Zaid, attorney and Victoria
Toensing. Also, Dr, James Knodell the Director of the Office
of Security, the White House has been invited to attend
11:00:00 COVERT. " THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
11:00:02 BY THE WAY, THE C.I.A. HAS AUTHORIZED US TO BE ABLE TO SAY
11:00:08 THAT. AND I UNDER THAT CHAIRMAN
11:00:12 WAXMAN SENT HIS OPENING STATEMENT OVER TO THE C.I.A. TO
11:00:15 BE CLEARED AND IN IT HE SAID MISS WILL SOP WAS A COVERT, AND
11:00:22 MISS WILSON WAS UNDER COVER. THE C.I.A. CLEARED THESE
11:00:27 STATEMENTS. I EMPHASIZE THIS, BECAUSE THERE
11:00:29 ARE PEOPLE STILL TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT WHAT SEEMS
11:00:34 ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ISN'T REALLY TRUE AND YOU WEREN'T COVERT.
11:00:37 I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO IN THIS HEARING IS
11:00:41 MAKE SURE THERE ISN'T ANY AMBIGUITY ON THIS POINT.
11:00:45 . .
11:01:21 YOU WERE A COVERT CIA EMPLOYEE, AND WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS
11:01:25 FROM TODAY YOU WENT ON SECRET MISSIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED
11:01:30 STATES. IS THAT CORRECT?
11:01:31 >> THAT IS CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU AND I
11:01:35 HOPE THIS COMMITTEE NOW CLEARED UP THE ISSUE OF COVERT, WHETHER
11:01:38 THIS PLAME WAS A -- MRS. PLAME WAS A COVERT AGENT.
11:01:46 I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
11:01:48 I AM GLAD MR. CONYERS ASKED THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WAS ON
11:01:52 TO ASK THEM, TOO. MISS WILSON, I WANT TO THANK YOU
11:01:56 FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, AND IF I SEEM OF LITTLE NERVOUS,
11:02:00 I'VE NEVER QUESTIONED A SPY BEFORE.
11:02:05 >> I'VE NEVER TESTIFIED BEFORE. >> I'M SORRY?
11:02:09 >> I NEVER TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE.
11:02:12 I WAS HERE DURING THE STEROID HEARINGS, TOO, AND I DO NOT
11:02:15 THINK ANY OF THE BASEBALL STARS GOT THE MEDIA ATTENTION YOU ARE
11:02:19 GETTING TODAY. WHEN THE CHAIRMAN HAS HIS
11:02:23 OPENING STATEMENT HE USED THREE TERMS -- COVERT, UNDER COVER,
11:02:27 AND CLASSIFIED. WERE YOU ONE OF THOSE IN
11:02:31 PARTICULAR OR ALL OF THEM OR THREE DIFFERENT TERMS TO
11:02:36 CATEGORIZE I GUESS YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY?
11:02:38 >> FOR THOSE OF US WHO WORK UNDER COVER IN THE CIA WE TENDED
11:02:45 TO USE COVERT AND UNDERCOVER INTERCHANGEABLY.
11:02:49 WE TYPICALLY WOULD NOT SAY OF OURSELVES THAT WE WERE IN A
11:02:54 CLASSIFIED POSITION. WE WERE UNDER COVER OR OVER
11:02:59 EMPLOYEE. >> DID YOU JUST DISCUSSED THIS
11:03:01 AMONG YOURSELVES WITH YOU WERE CLASSIFIED OR COVERT -- BECAUSE
11:03:05 I AM ASSUMING YOU COULD NOT DISCUSS IT WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE
11:03:08 THE AGENCY. IS IT AROUND THE BREAK ROOM
11:03:12 WHERE YOU SAY I AM COVERT OR CLASSIFIED, OR IF I WAS GOING
11:03:15 TO TELL SOMEBODY, WHAT I WOULD TELL SOMEBODY?
11:03:17 >> WITHIN YOUR COLLEAGUES EITHER WITHIN THE FIELD OR IN
11:03:22 HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU WERE WORKING ON A PROJECT
11:03:26 SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO KNOW IF YOU ARE UNDERCOVER OR OVERT, LET
11:03:29 ME KNOW, THEN YOU KNOW HOW TO TREAT THEM ACCORDINGLY IN THE
11:03:33 SENSE OF HOW CAREFUL TO BE IN YOUR ASSOCIATION AND SO FORTH.
11:03:37 >> RIGHT, SO YOUR FELLOW CIA EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT
11:03:42 YOU WERE COVERT. >> ABSOLUTELY.
11:03:44 >> DID YOU EVER TELL ANYONE THAT YOU WORKED FOR THE CIA, OR WAS
11:03:52 THAT COMMONLY KNOWN THAT YOU WORKED FOR THE CIA OR DID YOU
11:03:55 TELL THEM THAT YOU WERE SOMETHING ELSE?
11:03:58 >> NO, CONGRESSMAN, I COULD COUNT ON ONE HAND THE NUMBER OF
11:04:05 PEOPLE WHO KNEW WHERE MY TRUE EMPLOYER WAS THE DAY MY NAME AND
11:04:12 TRUE AFFILIATION WAS EXPOSED IN JULY OF 2003.
11:04:15 >> OK. AND I AM ASSUMING ONE OF THOSE
11:04:20 WAS YOUR HUSBAND. >> HE DID KNOW.
11:04:23 >> DID HE KNOW IF YOU WERE COVERT OR CLASSIFIED OR --
11:04:27 >> HE DID UNDERSTAND. AS A FORMER AMBASSADOR AT
11:04:35 HAVING HELD SECURITY CLEARANCES AND WORKED WITH MANY AGENCY
11:04:40 EMPLOYEES, HE UNDERSTOOD THAT WORLD TO A CERTAIN POINT AND HE
11:04:42 CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD BUT I WAS UNDERCOVER AND HE PROTECTED
11:04:46 THAT -- THAT I WAS UNDERCOVER AND SHE PROTECTED THAT
11:04:50 DILIGENTLY. >> ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER
11:04:53 ROUND OF QUESTIONS, MR. WAXMAN, I THINK?
11:04:57 >> WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER PANELS. >> HOW MUCH TIME?
11:05:04 >> ONE MINUTE AND 48 SECONDS. >> OK.
11:05:09 ON OCTOBER 5, 2003, WHILE BEING INTERVIEWED ON MEET THE PRESS
11:05:16 YOUR HUSBAND STATED THAT MY WIFE WILL NOT ALLOW HERSELF TO BE
11:05:20 PHOTOGRAPHED. IN RESPONSE TO THE PICTURE YOU
11:05:22 TOOK FOR VANITY FAIR YOUR HUSBAND WAS QUOTED IN THE
11:05:26 WASHINGTON POST, THE PICTURE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO A IDENTIFY
11:05:29 HER AND ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO, SHE IS STILL AND VOID BY THE CIA AND
11:05:34 HAS OBLIGATIONS TO HER EMPLOYER -- EMPLOYED BY THE CIA.
11:05:37 I GUESS THIS WAS AFTER THE INCIDENT WHERE EVERYBODY KNEW
11:05:41 THAT YOU WORKED FOR THE CIA, THAT THIS WAS DONE?
11:05:44 >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. AT THE TIME THAT PICTURE CAME
11:05:48 OUT MY COVERT STATUS WAS LONG GONE AND I WILL SAY THIS, HAVING
11:05:54 LIVED MOST OF MY LIFE A VERY MUCH UNDER THE RADAR, MY
11:05:58 LEARNING CURVE WAS STEEP AND IT WAS MORE TROUBLE THAN IT WAS
11:06:01 WORTH. >> BUT WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS
11:06:05 ACTUALLY TAKEN IN VANITY FAIR, THAT WAS NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE,
11:06:11 ALL THIS WAS NOT OUT OF THEM? >> CONGRESSMEN, THE PICTURE CAME
11:06:15 OUT IN LATE 2003, MY COVERT STATUS WAS BLOWN.
11:06:22 >> IF YOUR STATUS WAS EITHER COVERT AND CLASSIFIED AND IF YOU
11:06:26 DID IN FACT MEET WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE, MR.
11:06:32 CHRISTOPH, IF YOU VIEW IT AS PART OF YOUR COVERT OR
11:06:35 CLASSIFIED WORK TO MEET WITH POLITICAL GROUPS AND A COLUMNIST
11:06:40 WITH THE THE NEW YORK TIMES TO DISCUSS MATTERS WITHIN YOUR
11:06:43 PURVIEW AT THE CIA -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THE LIST OF
11:06:49 THINGS THAT WE COULD OR COULD NOT ASK YOU.
11:06:55 DID THIS DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE AND A COLUMNIST THE
11:07:02 NEW YORK TIMES HAVE OF THESE SAME RULES THAT THEY COULD OR
11:07:05 COULD NOT ASK YOU OR DID YOU VOLUNTEER OTHER INFORMATION?
11:07:08 >> CONGRESSMEN, I ATTENDED THAT CONFERENCE SIMPLY AS A SPOUSE OF
11:07:16 MY HUSBAND WHO WAS INVITED TO SPEAK.
11:07:18 HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO SPEAK BECAUSE HE HAD QUITE A BIT OF
11:07:23 EXPERIENCE ON IRAQ HAVING SERVED THE FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH AS THE
11:07:28 CHARGES AFFAIRS IN THE EMBASSY OF BAGHDAD AND A GOOD SHOOTER
11:07:34 RELEASES -- HOSTAGES WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN AND SO FORTH.
11:07:38 HE WAS ASKED TO ATTEND IN THAT CAPACITY.
11:07:42 I HAD NO DISCUSSIONS OTHER THAN PURELY SOCIAL IN NATURE.
11:07:48 >> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. MR. KUCINICH?
11:07:53 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS WILSON, AND BEFORE YOUR SERVICE
11:07:58 TO OUR COUNTRY. -- FRANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE
11:08:02 TO OUR COUNTRY. BRIEFLY WENT TO PICK UP ON MY
11:08:07 COLLEAGUE'S QUESTIONS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART AND
11:08:14 YOU SEE THE EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE TO
11:08:20 DISCLOSE YOUR IDENTITY, -- AND MOST OF THIS INFORMATION CAME
11:08:28 OUT OF THE LEAD TRIAL, THE -- LIBBY TRIAL.
11:08:37 THIS WAS NOT JUST A LEAK, WAS IT?
11:08:40 WAS THIS SIMPLY A LEAK? >> QUITE A BIT OF EVIDENCE CAME
11:08:48 OUT IN THE COURSE OF THE LIBBY TRIAL, AND I WAS REALLY DEEPLY
11:08:53 DISMAYED BECAUSE IT JUST SHOWED A RECKLESSNESS AND A POLITICAL
11:09:02 PATH THAT IS VERY, VERY UNFORTUNATE.
11:09:05 >> IN YOUR JUDGMENT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CHART DOESN'T SHOW A
11:09:08 VERY -- A FAIRLY ORGANIZED APPROACH TO DISCLOSE OR A
11:09:13 DEVOTEE? >> IT IS CERTAINLY WIDE
11:09:14 REACHING. >> BECAUSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, DO
11:09:20 LEAKS OCCUR OF AGENTS IDENTITY, IT DOES HAPPEN?
11:09:26 -- I'M SORRY, CONGRESSMAN? >> HAVE THERE BEEN IN THE PAST
11:09:31 LEAKS OF AN AGENT'S IDENTITY? >> NONE THAT I AM A BEAR --
11:09:37 AWARE OF BY THE VERY OWN GOVERNMENT.
11:09:40 >> AND YOU HAVE NEVER IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS AN AGENT SEEN THIS
11:09:43 KIND OF COORDINATED EFFORT TO BUY ONE ON GOVERNMENT COME IN
11:09:47 THIS CASE, OUR GOVERNMENT, TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF AN
11:09:51 AGENT? >> NO, CONGRESSMAN, I AM NOT
11:09:54 AWARE OF AN. >> TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE
11:09:57 AGENCY GO TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF WHICH -- ITS
11:10:01 AGENTS? >> IS SIGNIFICANT EFFORT.
11:10:06 TAXPAYERS' MONEY. PARTICULARLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE
11:10:12 OF GOOGLED AND INTERNET THE EFFORTS HAVE TO BE EVEN MORE
11:10:17 VIGILANT AND EVER MORE CREATIVE BECAUSE IT IS EXTREMELY EASY TO
11:10:21 FIND OUT A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT SOMEONE IF YOU REALLY WANT
11:10:24 TO. SO, WE ARE CONSTANTLY -- THE CIA
11:10:29 CONSTANTLY HAS TO BE ONE STEP AHEAD TO PROTECT THEIR
11:10:33 OPERATIONS OFFICERS. >> SO, WHEN THERE IS AN
11:10:37 EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT MADE TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF AN
11:10:41 AGENT, IS DESTRUCTIVE OF THE AGENCY AND IT IS DESTRUCTIVE OF
11:10:46 THE TAXPAYERS' INVESTMENT IN THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
11:10:49 >> ABSOLUTELY. >> AND, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
11:10:53 KEEPS RUNNING THROUGH MY MIND IS WHY?
11:10:56 WHY DID THIS HAPPEN TO YOU? WAS IT AN UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE
11:11:00 OR IS IT PART OF A LARGER PATTERN?
11:11:03 IN RECENT WEEKS WE HAVE LEARNED THAT YOU AS ATTORNEYS AND ALL
11:11:06 PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WERE FIRED DESPITE ITS SOME THREE SERVICE
11:11:09 AND SEVERAL OF THESE TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS THAT THERE WAS THE
11:11:14 IMPRESSION TO PURSUE CASES AGAINST DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS,
11:11:17 OTHERS BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE FIRED BECAUSE THEY WERE PURSUING
11:11:19 CASES AGAINST REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS.
11:11:21 HAVE YOU FOLLOW THIS? >> YES, I HAVE, CONGRESSMAN.
11:11:27 >> WHEN I THINK WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE ATTORNEYS I CAN'T HELP BUT
11:11:30 THINK OF YOUR CASE BECAUSE THESE COULD BE ISOLATED INSTANCES BUT
11:11:34 THEY SEEM TO BE PART OF A LARGER PATTERN.
11:11:36 DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH FORMER TREASURY
11:11:39 SECRETARY MR. O'NEILL WHEN HE WROTE HIS BOOK?
11:11:41 >> YES, I AM AWARE OF THAT. >> AND AFTER SECRETARY O'NEILL
11:11:46 WROTE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS PLANNING TO OVERTHROW SADDAM
11:11:49 HUSSEIN IN A MUCH EARLIER TIME FRAME THAN ANYONE KNEW,
11:11:52 SECRETARY O'NEILL WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF LEAKING CLASSIFIED
11:11:56 INFORMATION. DID YOU KNOW THAT SECRETARY
11:11:58 O'NEILL WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT FOR CROWN
11:12:02 THIS ACCUSATION? >> I BELIEVE I HAVE READ THAT,
11:12:05 YES. >> AND ANOTHER INSTANCE GENERAL
11:12:09 XU ZAGACKI -- LOOKED AT THE U.S. WOULD BE SEVERAL THOUSAND TROOPS
11:12:12 IN IRAQ. YOU REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO
11:12:13 HIM? >> YES, I DO, CONGRESSMAN.
11:12:16 >> HE WAS DISMISSED. >> I AM ALSO REMINDED OF THE
11:12:20 CASE OF RICHARD FOSTER, THE GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF MEDICARE
11:12:23 ACTUARY WHO WAS -- TOLD CONGRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW MUCH THE
11:12:29 ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED DRUG BENEFIT WOULD COAST -- COSTS.
11:12:32 YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT, MISS WILSON?
11:12:34 >> YES, I AM. >> AGAIN, THESE ALL BE ISOLATED
11:12:38 INSTANCES BUT IT SEEMS TO BE PART OF A LARGER PATTERN.
11:12:41 I AM STRUCK BY WHAT YOUR HUSBAND, JOE WILSON, WAS QUOTED
11:12:46 IN A BOOK. JOLSON WAS UPSET AND REGARDED
11:12:51 THE LEAGUE AS A WARNING TO OTHERS.
11:12:53 STORES LIKE THIS ARE NOT INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE ME SINCE
11:12:55 I OF OUR CRITICAL MY STORY. BUT IT IS PRETTY CLEARLY
11:12:59 INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE OTHERS WHO MIGHT GO FORWARD.
11:13:02 YOU NEED ONLY TO LOOK AT THE STORIES INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS
11:13:06 WHO SAY THEY HAVE BEEN PRESSURED.
11:13:09 THEY MAY HAVE KIDS IN COLLEGE, MAYBE ALL MOBILE TO THESE TYPES
11:13:12 OF SENIORS. IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK WAS GOING
11:13:13 ON HERE? >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- I WILL
11:13:18 SPEAK ONLY TO THE REALM OF INTELLIGENCE AND THE
11:13:24 POLITICIZING OF THAT, CERTAINLY VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY'S
11:13:27 UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF VISITS TO CIA HEADQUARTERS IN THE RUN-
11:13:30 UP TO THE WAR MIGHT BE ONE EXAMPLE.
11:13:32 THE LAW THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT.
11:13:36 -- THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE IS
11:13:41 WORKING AT THE AGENCY LEVEL THAT PEOPLE WORKING -- THE VICE
11:13:47 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COMES OVER AND STARTS LOOKING
11:13:48 OVER THEIR SHOULDER. IS THAT INTIMIDATING?
11:13:51 >> YES, IT IS. >> MR. KUCINICH, YOUR TIME HAS
11:13:56 EXPIRED. >> MISS WATSON?
11:13:58 >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS HEARING.
11:14:06 IT SHOWS OUR DETERMINATION TO BRING OUT INTO THE OPEN THE
11:14:11 MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE. I AM AND AMBASSADOR.
11:14:17 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TRAINING.
11:14:20 I HAVE BEEN BLINDFOLDED, PUT ON A C-130, TAKEN TO A SITE, TAKEN
11:14:26 INTO A ROOM WITH MY COLLEAGUES, JUST LIKE -- HANDED A RED
11:14:35 FOLDER, HIGHLY CLASSIFIED WITH A GENERAL STANDING OVER MY
11:14:39 SHOULDER. READ IT, AND GIVEN BACK TO ME.
11:14:44 ANY INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT OF THAT TOTAL WAS MADE PUBLIC BUT
11:14:48 HAD TO COME FROM TWO SOURCES -- THE GENERAL ON MYSELF.
11:14:53 I WAS THE ONLY WOMAN IN THE ROOM.
11:14:55 THE MEN -- I CAN TELL YOU BUT I WILL HAVE TO KILL YOU.
11:15:01 I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO HOW IT WORKS.
11:15:04 AND I AM FURIOUS THAT YOUR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WAS --
11:15:13 OF ALL PEOPLE. I AM GOING TO GUESS YOU SOME
11:15:18 QUESTIONS. THEY MIGHT APPEAR TO BE
11:15:21 REPETITIVE. BUT YOU ARE SWORN AND I WANT
11:15:25 THIS FOR THE RECORD. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PATRICK
11:15:29 FITZGERALD FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF ROBERT NOVAK'S JULY 14,
11:15:37 2003,, YOUR EMPLOYMENT STATUS WAS CLASSIFIED.
11:15:43 AND YOUR AFFILIATION WITH THE CIA WAS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE
11:15:48 OUTSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
11:15:51 THE CIA HAS CONFIRMED TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT AT THE TIME OF
11:15:55 MR. NOVAK ARTICLE YOUR EMPLOYMENT STATUS WAS COVERT AND
11:16:02 THAT INFORMATION WAS CLASSIFIED. BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL
11:16:06 TRYING TO MINIMIZE YOUR SERVICE BY SUGGESTING YOU REALLY WEREN'T
11:16:11 AT RISK AND THAT YOUR POSITION WAS NOT CLASSIFIED BECAUSE YOU
11:16:18 WORKED AT A DESK JOB. AT THE CIA HEADQUARTERS AT
11:16:23 LANGLEY, VIRGINIA. LET ME GIVE YOU AN ACTUAL
11:16:28 EXAMPLE. REPRESENTATIVE WARNED IT BLUNT
11:16:32 SAID IT WON THE TELEVISION PROGRAM "FACE OF THE NATION --
11:16:36 ROY BLUNT -- >> -- "THIS IS A JOB THE AMBASSADORS WENT TO
11:16:46 EVERY DAY, THIS WAS A DESK JOB." I THINK MANY PEOPLE IN
11:16:50 WASHINGTON UNDERSTOOD THAT HURT EMPLOYMENT WAS AT THE CIA AND
11:16:55 SHE WENT TO THAT OFFICE EVERY DAY.
11:17:00 MRS. WILSON, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT BASED ON YOUR SERVICE FOR
11:17:05 OUR GOVERNMENT, YOU ARE WELL VERSED IN THE RULES GOVERNING
11:17:10 THE HANDLING OF CLAIFIED INFORMATION.
11:17:13 >> ABSOLUTELY, CONGRESSWOMAN. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST ADD THAT
11:17:20 WENT OPERATIONS OFFICER, WHETHER THEY ARE POSTED ON THE FIELD OR
11:17:23 BACK AT HEADQUARTERS, WE ARE GIVEN TRAINING TO UNDERSTAND
11:17:27 SURVEILLANCE DETECTED IN -- DETECTION TRAINING SO THAT WE
11:17:31 UNDERSTAND VERY CAREFULLY THAT WE ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED AND
11:17:38 THAT WE FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT OUR STATUS WOULD BE
11:17:41 PROTECTED. >> THAT IS THE REASON WHY I
11:17:43 STARTED OFF WITH MY OWN SCENARIO.
11:17:46 IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER GOVERNING
11:17:51 THE SAFEGUARDING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROHIBITS THE
11:17:55 DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO PERSONS WHO ARE
11:17:59 NOT AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION.
11:18:03 >> YES, CORRECT. >> YES IS THE ANSWER.
11:18:07 >> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN. >> AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING
11:18:12 THAT WHILE AN EMPLOYEE EX-CIA IS UNDER COVER OF THAT INDIVIDUAL'S
11:18:16 EMPLOYMENT STATUS AT THE CIA IS CONSIDERED CLASSIFIED
11:18:20 INFORMATION -- EMPLOYMENT AT THE CIA IS UNDER COVER.
11:18:24 ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DESK JOB ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
11:18:29 PROHIBITING THE RELEASE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ONE OF
11:18:32 THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF A SEAT BY A OF FOR YOU?
11:18:36 >> NO, CONGRESSMAN -- CONGRESSMAN.
11:18:41 >> SO I THINK YOUR TESTIMONY UNDERSCORES THAT THE ATTEMPT TO
11:18:47 MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCLOSURE OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT
11:18:50 SYSTEM -- STATUS ARE IN AFFECT MINIMIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
11:18:55 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION RULES DESIGNED TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL
11:19:01 SECURITY. AND I AM INFURIATED TO CONTINUE
11:19:09 TO HEAR SHE DOES HAVE A DESK JOB BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND, I HAVE
11:19:12 BEEN THERE, I HAVE HAD THE TRAINING, AND I WANT TO FINE
11:19:16 TUNE KHANSON SIRLEAF THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE -- THANK YOU
11:19:20 SINCERELY FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE WHAT PROTECTION, HOMELAND
11:19:24 SECURITY, AND SHOWING A LOW FOR THIS COUNTRY.
11:19:27 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN.
11:19:30 >> MR. LYNCH? >> THANK YOU.
11:19:34 FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU, MRS. PLAME -- MRS. PLAME
11:19:39 FOR COMING TO THE COMMITTEE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
11:19:41 I HAVE TO SAY, THIS HEARING HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.
11:19:45 THE CHAIRMAN AND I AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE SIGNED A
11:19:49 FIVE OR SIX REQUEST OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS TO GET YOU
11:19:51 BEFORE US AND TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.
11:19:56 WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU AT LEAST CAN BE TAKEN IN A WIDER
11:20:01 CONTEXT NOW -- THE TAV ON MAJOR ISSUES ARE, NUMBER ONE, THE
11:20:08 PROCESS BY WHICH CONGRESS RECEIVES INFORMATION RELATIVE TO
11:20:12 NATIONAL SECURITY. AS YOU KNOW, YOUR OUTING IF YOU
11:20:18 WILL OR DISCLOSURE OF COVERT STATUS WAS, I THINK, A
11:20:23 DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DISCOUNT THE STATEMENTS OF YOUR HUSBAND
11:20:27 WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPPOSED ATTEMPT BY SADDAM HUSSEIN TO
11:20:32 PURCHASE URANIUM OR PLUTONIUM N ORIGER.
11:20:39 -- THROUGH NIGER. EVIDENTLY IN THIS CHARTER 20
11:20:47 OCCASIONS IN WHICH PEOPLE DELIBERATELY, I THINK,
11:20:52 ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY YOUR CREDIBILITY AND ALSO TO IT
11:20:58 DESTROYED YOUR EFFECTIVENESS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION, WITHIN
11:21:00 THE CIA. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN CAREFUL
11:21:05 WITH YOUR WORDS. ONCE OR TWICE MIGHT BE CARELESS,
11:21:09 FIVE OR SIX MIKE RECKLESS, BUT 20 TIMES, I'LL SAY IT, 20
11:21:14 TIMES IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY YOUR STATUS AS A COVERT
11:21:19 AGENT. AND THE ONLY OTHER MAJOR CASE IN
11:21:22 WHICH WE HAVE HAD THE ACCOUNTING OF A CIA AGENTS, THE SUPREME
11:21:28 COURT SAID IT IS OBVIOUS AND INARGUABLE THAT NO GOVERNMENTAL
11:21:33 INTEREST IS MORE COMPELLING THAN THE SECURITY OF THE NATION.
11:21:38 GOING TO THOSE COUPLE OF ISSUES, FIRST OF ALL, THE INTEGRITY OF
11:21:47 THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE GET OUR INFORMATION WAS AFFECTED
11:21:50 GREATLY, I THINK, IN THE TERMS OF OTHER AGENTS WHO MAY HAVE
11:21:55 BEEN VERY DISHEARTENED AND TROUBLED BY WHAT HAPPENED TO
11:21:58 YOU. AND IN AN EFFORT TO DISCOUNT
11:22:01 YOUR HUSBAND'S CREDIBILITY, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED -- AND IT
11:22:04 HAS BEEN ROUTINELY RAISED -- WHETHER YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THE
11:22:10 DECISION BY THE CIA TO ACTUALLY SEND YOUR HUSBAND, AMBASSADOR
11:22:14 JOSEPH WILSON, TO NIGER IN FEBRUARY OF 2002 TO OBTAIN
11:22:19 INFORMATION ON ALLEGATIONS THAT IRAQ'S OF URANIUM FROM NIGER.
11:22:24 THEY SORT OF SAID, OH, HIS WIFE SENT HIM, LIKE MY WIFE SENDS ME
11:22:30 OUT TO PUT OUT THE CRASH, TRY TO DISCOUNT THE IMPORT OF THAT, AT
11:22:35 LEAST I SUBMIT IT. NOW, I WANT TO ASK YOU, THE
11:22:41 SUGGESTION THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN SENDING YOUR HUSBAND
11:22:44 SEEMED TO DRIVE THE LEAKS IN AN EFFORT TO DISCOUNT HIS
11:22:47 CREDIBILITY. I WANT TO ASK YOU NOW UNDER
11:22:50 OATH, DID YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO SEND AMBASSADOR WILSON TO
11:22:53 NIGER. >> NO, I DID NOT RECOMMEND HIM,
11:22:56 I DID NOT SUGGEST HIM, THERE WAS NO NEPOTISM INVOLVED.
11:23:00 I DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY. CONGRESSMAN, IF YOU WILL ALLOW
11:23:04 ME BRIEFLY TO LAY OUT A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
11:23:06 >> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION, IF YOU WOULD.
11:23:09 I SORT OF DOUBT IT -- IF I WERE TO SEND MY WIFE SOMEWHERE IT
11:23:13 WOULD NOT BE NIGER. NOTHING AGAINST NIGER -- PLEASE,
11:23:21 IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH EVERYTHING YOU DID THAT MAY HAVE
11:23:24 BEEN RELATED TO AROUND THE TIME OF THE DECISION TO SEND
11:23:28 AMBASSADOR WILSON TO NIER. >> THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN, I AM
11:23:34 DELIGHTED AS WELL THAT ITEM UNDER OATH AS I REPLIED TO YOU.
11:23:38 IN FEBRUARY OF 2002 A YOUNG JUNIOR OFFICER WHO WORKED FOR ME
11:23:41 CAME TO ME VERY CONCERNED, VERY UPSET.
11:23:45 SHE HAD JUST RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL ON HER DESK FROM
11:23:49 SOMEONE, I DON'T KNOW WHO, IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE
11:23:53 PRESIDENT, A ASKING ABOUT THIS REPORT OF THIS ALLEGED SALE OF
11:23:58 YELLOWCAKE URANIUM FROM NIGER TO IRAQ.
11:24:03 SHE CAME TO ME AND AS SHE WAS TELLING ME WHAT HAD JUST
11:24:07 HAPPENED, SOMEONE PASSED BY AND ANOTHER OFFICER HEARD THIS, HE
11:24:11 KNEW THAT JOE HAD ALREADY, MY HUSBAND, ALREADY GONE ON SOME
11:24:18 CIA MISSIONS PREVIOUSLY TO DEAL WITH OTHER NUCLEAR MATTERS.
11:24:22 AND HE SUGGESTED, WHY DON'T WE SEND JOE?
11:24:28 HE KNEW THAT JOE HAD MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ON THE AFRICAN
11:24:31 CONTINENT. HE ALSO KNEW THAT HE HAD SERVED
11:24:36 WELL AND HEROICALLY IN THE BAGHDAD -- EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD
11:24:40 DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR. AND I WILL BE HONEST, I WAS
11:24:44 SOMEWHAT AMBIVALENT AT THE TIME WE HAD TO YOUR OLD TWINS AT
11:24:48 HOME, AND ALL I COULD ENVISION WAS THE BOND MYSELF AT A TIME
11:24:52 WITH A COUPLE OF TO YOUR OLD, SO I WASN'T -- WITH A COUPLE OF TWO
11:24:59 YEARS OLD SO I WAS NOT OVERJOYED.
11:25:01 NEVERTHELESS WE WENT TO MY BRANCH CHIEF, OUR SUPERVISOR, MY
11:25:05 COLLEAGUES SUGGESTED THIS IDEA, AND MY SUPERVISOR TURNED TO ME
11:25:09 AND SAID, WELL, WHEN YOU GO HOME THIS EVENING, WOULD YOU BE
11:25:13 WILLING TO SPEAK TO YOUR HUSBAND AND ASK HIM TO COME INTO
11:25:16 HEADQUARTERS NEXT WEEK AND WE WILL DISCUSS THE OPTIONS AND SEE
11:25:20 WHAT WE CAN DO. OF COURSE.
11:25:23 AND AS I WAS LEAVING HE ASKED ME TO DRAFT A QUICK E-MAIL TO THE
11:25:28 CHIEF OF OUR COUNTER PROLIFERATION DIVISION LETTING
11:25:32 HIM KNOW THAT THIS MIGHT HAPPEN. I SAID, OF COURSE.
11:25:38 YOU KNOW, CONGRESSMAN, THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IN A
11:25:43 PORTION OF WHICH YOU SEE IN THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
11:25:46 INTELLIGENCE REPORT OF JULY 2004.
11:25:49 THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH I HAVE SUGGESTED OR RECOMMENDED
11:25:52 HIM. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST
11:25:55 FOLLOW UP -- A 30 SECONDS. >> WITHOUT OBJECTIONS.
11:26:00 >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT SENATE
11:26:03 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING. THERE WERE THREE REPUBLICAN
11:26:11 SENATORS WOULD INCLUDE A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT WHICH --
11:26:14 VISIT THE " "THE PLAN TO SEND A FORMER AMBASSADOR TO NIGER WAS
11:26:19 ADJUSTED TO THE FORMER AMBASSADOR'S WIFE, A CIA
11:26:23 EMPLOYEE." WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THE
11:26:27 STATEMENT IN THE SENATE REPORT ABOUT THE GENESIS OF YOUR
11:26:29 HUSBAND'S TRIP IN 2002? >> CORDESMAN, IT'S INCORRECT.
11:26:34 IT HAS BEEN BORN -- CONGRESSMAN, IT'S IN COURT.
11:26:37 IT HAS BEEN BORNE OUT OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE LIBBY TRIAL AND
11:26:42 THAT DOES NOT SQUARE IN THE FACT.
11:26:45 THE ADDITIONAL VIEWS WERE WRITTEN EXCLUSIVELY BY THREE
11:26:48 REPUBLICAN SENATORS. >> THANK YOU, MR. LYNCH.
11:26:51 MR. YARMOUTH? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
11:26:54 WOULD YIELD MY TIME TO MR. VAN HOLLEN.
11:26:56 >> MR. VAN HOLLEN IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
11:27:03 MS. PLAME BY YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND
11:27:09 TESTIMONY. JUST TO REMIND US ALL OF THE
11:27:11 LARGER CONTEXT. IN THE LEAD UP TO WHERE YOU
11:27:15 REMEMBER STATEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE NINE STATES,
11:27:18 VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF STATE, CONDOLEEZZA RICE AND
11:27:21 OTHERS ABOUT MUSHROOM CLOUDS, INVOKING THE IMAGE OF THAT
11:27:25 SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS GOING TO BE OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND
11:27:30 USING THEM IN TERRORIST ATTACKS. AND SO WHEN AMBASSADOR WILSON
11:27:35 WROTE HIS ARTICLE IN THE THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT BEGAN WITH THIS
11:27:41 STATEMENT, DID THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MANIPULATE
11:27:44 INTELLIGENCE ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS PROGRAMS TO
11:27:46 JUSTIFY AN INVASION OF IRAQ, AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN THE
11:27:51 FOLLOWING SENTENCE, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE
11:27:53 ADMINISTRATION THE MONTHS LEADING UP TO THE WAR I HAVE
11:27:55 LITTLE CHOICE TO CONCLUDE A SOME OF THE INTELLIGENCE RELATED TO
11:27:59 IRAQ'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM WAS TWISTED TO EXAGGERATE THE
11:28:02 IRAQI THREAT. THAT POSED A DIRECT THREAT TO
11:28:06 THE ADMINISTRATION'S CREDIBILITY.
11:28:09 CLEARLY THEY UNDERSTOOD THE DANGER OF THAT BECAUSE IT
11:28:12 UNDERCUT ONE OF THE MAIN UNDERPINNINGS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
11:28:15 THE AUTMAN STATION BEFORE THE WAR.
11:28:18 YOU SEE FROM THE CHART HERE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DID SPRING INTO
11:28:22 ACTION AND BEGIN TO TRY AND DISCREDIT YOUR HUSBAND, AND THAT
11:28:27 IS HOW YOU WERE DRAWN INTO THIS WEB.
11:28:33 MR. MCCLELLAN, THEN WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN, SAID ON BEHALF OF THE
11:28:38 ADMINISTRATION AND BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT, IF ANYONE IN THIS
11:28:40 ADMINISTRATION WAS INVOLVED -- MEANING, THE RELEASE AND
11:28:44 DISSEMINATION -- THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE IN THIS
11:28:49 ADMINISTRATION. DO YOU BELIEVE THERE CONTINUES
11:28:50 TO BE PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS IN THIS ADMINISTRATION WHO WERE
11:28:53 INVOLVED IN LEAKING INFORTION ABOUT YOU?
11:28:55 >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. AS YOU KNOW, AGAIN, FROM THE
11:29:01 EVIDENCE THAT WAS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL OF VICE PRESIDENT
11:29:05 FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, FOR ONE, KARL ROVE CLEARLY WAS INVOLVED
11:29:10 IN THE LEAKING OF MY NAME AND HE STILL CARRIES A SECURITY
11:29:13 CLEARANCE TO THIS DAY DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS TO THE
11:29:17 CONTRARY THAT HE WOULD IMMEDIATELY DISMISS ANYONE WHO
11:29:19 HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. >> END OF THE CIA SPOKESMAN MADE
11:29:24 A STATEMENT AND OTHER -- AND THE CIA SPOKESMAN RESTATEMENT AND
11:29:29 OTHERS SAID THE FAILED TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LEAKING
11:29:33 THIS KIND OF INFORMATION SENDS A VERY TERRIBLE MESSAGE TO OTHERS
11:29:37 IN THE INTELLIGENCE FIELD. DO YOU THINK A FAILURE OF A
11:29:41 PRESIDENT TO FIRE PEOPLE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION WHO WERE
11:29:46 INVOLVED WITH THIS MESSAGE CENTS A CHILLING MESSAGE TO THOSE IN
11:29:52 THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT WILLING
11:29:55 TO STAND UP BEHIND THOSE PEOPLE PUTTING THEIR LIVES IN DANGER
11:29:59 EVERY DAY? >> YES, I BELIEVE IT UNDERMINES
11:30:03 THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS -- AND I
11:30:08 WOULD JUST SAY ONE OF RECORD THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE
11:30:13 MADE AT TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO KARL ROVE'S INVOLVEMENT, JUST
11:30:19 STAY THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY MR. COOPER AT THE TIME MAGAZINE, WHO
11:30:23 SAID THAT HE WAS TOLD BY KARL ROVE "DON'T GO TOO FAR OUT ON
11:30:28 THE WILSON, BUT MR. WILSON'S WIFE WORKED AT THE " AGENCY AND
11:30:34 THE CONCLUSION ACCORDING TO MR. COOPER MR. ROH SAID "I HAVE
11:30:39 ALREADY SAID TO MUCH." CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASON WHY
11:30:42 MR. KARL ROVE WOULD MAKE THE STATEMENT IF HE DID NOT KNOW
11:30:44 THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN WRONGDOING.
11:30:47 >> CONGRESSMEN, I CANNOT BEGIN TO SPECULATE ON MR. KARL ROVE'S
11:30:53 INNT, I JUST KNOW HIS WORK AND THE EFFECTS.
11:30:55 >> THANK YOU. LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP BRIEFLY ON
11:30:59 MR. LYNCH'S LINE OF QUESTIONING REGARDING THE SENATE REPORT AND
11:31:04 WHO HAD AMBASSADOR WILSON SENT TO NIGER AND WHO WAS THE
11:31:14 INSTIGATOR OF THAT. UNCLASSIFIED SENATE REPORT
11:31:20 ASSERTS THE COUNTER PROLIFERATION DIVISION OF
11:31:24 REPORTS OFFICER TOLD THE COMMITTEE STAFF THAT THE FORMER
11:31:28 AMBASSADOR'S WIFE, YOU, OFFERED UP HIS NAME.
11:31:32 YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT STATEMENT IN THE UNCLASSIFIED
11:31:35 REPORT COURSE OF THE >> YES, I AM.
11:31:36 >> I DID NOT WANT YOU TO REVEAL ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OR
11:31:42 ANYONE TO ATTEND TO. BUT MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU
11:31:44 TALKED TO THAT CPD REPORTS OFFICER INTERVIEWED BY THE
11:31:48 SENATE COMMITTEE? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN, AND I CAN
11:31:51 TELL YOU THAT HE CAME TO ME ALMOST WITH TEARS IN HIS EYES,
11:31:58 HE SAID HIS WORDS HAVE BEEN TWISTED AND DISTORTED, HE WROTE
11:32:03 A MEMO, AND HE ASKED A SUPERVISOR TO ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK
11:32:08 WE INTERVIEWED -- REINTERVIEWED THE MEMO WENT NOWHERE AND THE
11:32:17 REQUEST WAS DENIED. >> SO THERE IS A MEMO WRITTEN BY
11:32:20 THE CPD OFFICER UPON WHOSE ALLEGED TESTIMONY THE SENATE
11:32:27 ROAD ITS REPORT THAT CONTRADICTS THE CONCLUSIONS --
11:32:29 >> ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR.
11:32:33 >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD ASK FOR
11:32:37 THAT MEMO. IT BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE
11:32:40 CREDIBILITY OF THE SENATE REPORT WHEN THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE,
11:32:44 BUT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO USE DISCREDIT AMBASSADOR WILSON'S
11:32:48 VISION. >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN MAKES
11:32:50 AN ESCO -- EXCELLENT POINT AND WE WILL INSIST ON GETTING THAT
11:32:53 MEMO. >> THANK YOU.
11:32:55 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> MR. HOLMES -- THE GERMAN
11:33:13 RESERVES AS TIME. -- THE GENTLEMAN RESERVES HIS
11:33:19 TIME. >> THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
11:33:21 I KNOW THIS CAN'T BE EASY FOR YOU.
11:33:25 IF YOU PUT THIS AFFAIR IN CONTEXT, WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH
11:33:31 YOU, WITH ALL THE OTHER ABUSES, FRANKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE
11:33:36 HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING OVER THE LAST SEVEN WEEKS, I THANK YOU
11:33:41 FOR THE THE DILIGENCE OF YOUR INQUIRY AND FAIRNESS OF YOUR
11:33:44 INQUIRY INTO A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED, IT PAINTS A
11:33:48 PICTURE OF AN ADMINISTRATION OF BULLIES.
11:33:53 IN MY VIEW. THAT THINKS THAT IN ORDER TO
11:34:00 ACHIEVE WHATEVER THE END OF DAY ARE SEEKING, ANY MEANS CANNOT BE
11:34:04 JUSTIFIED. -- ANY MEANS CAN BE JUSTIFIED.
11:34:10 AND THAT PEOPLE CAN JUST BE PUSHED AROUND.
11:34:14 WE SAW IT WHEN WE HAD TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO
11:34:21 BULLIED THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY BY OFFERING TESTIMONY --
11:34:27 ALTERING TESTIMONY ON GLOBAL WARMING.
11:34:28 WE HAVE SEEN THIS ON THE INVESTIGATIONS YOU HAVE THE MR.
11:34:32 CHAIRMAN WITH RESPECT TO THE TREATMENT OF OUR CIVIL SOURCE --
11:34:35 CIVIL SERVICE. NOW RECEIVE IN THE CONTEXT OF
11:34:38 OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. -- WE SEE IT IN THE CONTEXT.
11:34:42 TO ME WHAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED IT'S REALLY THE RESULT OF THIS
11:34:46 SYNDROME THAT'S DEVELOPED IN THIS ADMINISTRATION WHICH
11:34:52 REFLEX THE ARROGANCE OF POWER RUN AMOK.
11:34:58 I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO ASK
11:35:00 YOU. IN THAT VEIN.
11:35:04 FIRST OF ALL, I GATHER YOU BELIEVE THAT THE OUTING OF YOUR
11:35:15 STATUS, THE BLOWING OF THE COVERT STATUS WAS AS A CARRIZO
11:35:22 TO OF SOME OF THE STATEMENTS -- AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE
11:35:26 STATEMENTS AND CHALLENGES HE WAS BRINGING COME IS THAT RIGHT?
11:35:29 >> YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
11:35:32 >> OK. BUT AT THE POINT THAT THEY WERE
11:35:39 PREPARED TO SURRENDER YOUR COVERT STATUS TO THE PUBLIC,
11:35:43 WHAT WAS TO BE GAINED BY THAT? WAS IT TO APPLY FURTHER
11:35:49 LEVERAGED? REALLY IT WAS SORT OF AFTER THE
11:35:51 FACT. >> MY THINKING, CONGRESSMEN, IS
11:35:59 BACKED BY CONTINUING TO ASSERT -- IS THAT BY CONTINUING TO
11:36:05 ASSERT FALSELY THAT I SOMEHOW SUGGESTED HIM OR RECOMMENDED HIM
11:36:08 FOR THIS MISSION, IT WOULD UNDERCUT THE CREDIBILITY OF WHAT
11:36:12 HE WAS SAYING. AND THAT IS WHAT I THINK WHAT
11:36:18 HAS HAPPENED, AND IT JUST GOT A LITTLE OUT OF HAND.
11:36:23 >> IT STRIKES ME AS PETULANT BEHAVIOR ON THEIR PART.
11:36:28 SECONDLY, THERE IS THIS SUGGESTION BEING MADE THE THAT
11:36:33 YOUR STATUS HAD BEEN THE OLD SORT OF ACCIDENT LEE.
11:36:37 BUT YOU DESCRIBE -- DEVOLVED ACCIDENTLY.
11:36:41 BUT YOU DESCRIBE STRUCTURAL EFFORTS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
11:36:45 MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN ACCIDENTALLY.
11:36:49 AND SO COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT?
11:36:52 IT SEEMS TO ME THAT AN ORDER FOR YOUR STATUS TO HAVE BEEN
11:36:56 DISCLOSED SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE HAD TO WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
11:36:59 THE WAY THINGS WERE SET UP, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT YOUR
11:37:05 STATUS WOULD BE PASCO'S BY ACCIDENT.
11:37:08 -- BE DISCLOSED AND BY ACCIDENT.
11:37:12 IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ORCHESTRATED EFFORT.
11:37:15 COULD YOU TALK ABOUT STRUCTURALLY WHETHER THAT IS THE
11:37:17 CASE? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO INTENT, BUT
11:37:22 I CAN SPEAK TO SIMPLY WHAT ACTIONS WE CAN RESERVE --
11:37:28 OBSERVED. AND THAT, AGAIN, THEY OWN KNEW
11:37:31 THAT I WORKED IN THE CIA. THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN WHAT
11:37:36 MY STATUS WAS, BUT THAT ALONE, THE FACT WORKED AT THE CIA
11:37:40 SHOULD HAVE PUT UP A RED FLAG THAT THEY ACTED MUCH MORE
11:37:46 PROTECTIVE WAY OF MY IDENTITY AND TRUE EMPLOYER.
11:37:50 >> LASTLY, AGAIN, TRYING TO GET -- THIS IS MORE THAN A STORY
11:37:55 ABOUT VALERIE PLAME WILSON AND WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU.
11:37:59 WHAT IS -- WHAT DEVASTATING IS WHAT IT'S BEEN TO YOUR LIFE IN
11:38:07 THIS PAST MONTHS. IT IS ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE
11:38:11 COMMUNITY AND YOU SPOKE TO YOURSELF HOW THIS KIND OF
11:38:14 CONDUCT CAN AFFECT THE INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
11:38:17 OUR INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS. CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE CHILLING
11:38:24 EFFECT, IF YOU WILL, WHAT THE MESSAGE ITS SENSE TO PEOPLE?
11:38:29 TO THOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE SENT ON A MISSION TO COLLECT
11:38:33 INTELLIGENCE ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT
11:38:37 ALREADY HAVE A VERY STRONG OPINION ABOUT?
11:38:40 HOW WOULD IT AFFECT THE WAY THAT AGENT, THE WEIGHT THAT PERSON
11:38:45 WOULD COLLECT THAT INFORMATION -- OF THE WAY THAT PERSON WOULD
11:38:49 COLLECT INFORMATION AND GET IT BACK UP THE CHAIN?
11:38:52 >> INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION IS CERTAINLY MORE OF AN ART THAN A
11:38:56 SCIENCE. BUT IF THERE IS ANY TAINT OF
11:39:00 BIAS, THEN IT UNDERMINES ITS USEFULNESS.
11:39:04 THE PRIMARY CUSTOMER OF OUR INTELLIGENCE IS OF COURSE THE
11:39:08 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
11:39:11 UNITED STATES THINKS SOMEHOW OR DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT HIS
11:39:16 INTELLIGENCE HE BELIEVES -- RECEIVES ON HIS DESK EVERY
11:39:21 MORNING IS FREE OF IDEOLOGIES, POLITICS, A CERTAIN VIEWPOINT,
11:39:27 HOW THEN CAN THE THAT PRESIDENT MAKE THE MOST IMPORTANT
11:39:31 DECISIONS OF ALL ABOUT THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY?
11:39:35 I DO FEEL PASSIONATELY ABOUT THAT.
11:39:38 YOU HAVE TO GET THE POLITICS OUT OF OUR INTELLIGENCE PROCESS.
11:39:42 >> I APPRECIATE THAT CAPRI -- APPRECIATE THE PASSION YOU
11:39:46 BROUGHT YOUR JOB AND YOU REPRESENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
11:39:48 OF PEOPLE THAT GO TO WORK AND TRY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR
11:39:52 THIS COUNTRY. AND I THINK ARE BEING BULLIED BY
11:39:57 THIS ADMINISTRATION. YOU WON'T GET THE APOLOGY FROM
11:40:00 THEM THAT YOU DESERVE. BUT WHAT YOU TO KNOW THAT
11:40:02 EVERYONE HERE AND APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.
11:40:05 I GIVE OR MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MR. SARBANES.
11:40:11 WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH, AND RATHER THAN A SECOND ROUND, MR.
11:40:16 DAVIS AND I AGREE THAT WE WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO WRAP UP,
11:40:22 CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RANKING MEMBER AND I WILL
11:40:25 YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MR. DAVIS AT THIS POINT.
11:40:27 >> MR. WESTMORELAND CAMILLE THIS MUCH TIME AS YOU MAKE OF SOME.
11:40:31 >> -- I YIELD AS MUCH TIME AS YOU MAY CONSUME.
11:40:40 >> I REGRET WE CANNOT STAY HERE TO GET ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS
11:40:43 ANSWERED BY MISS WILSON BECAUSE I HAVE SO MANY TO ASK BECAUSE
11:40:47 THERE IS SO MUCH CONFLICTING REPORTS CUFF AND I THINK THAT
11:40:52 SOMETHING OF THIS IMPORTANCE -- BUT, MS. WILSON, THE COUNTER
11:41:00 PROLIFERATION DIVISION OF THE CIA, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY
11:41:05 IMPORTANT PLACE WHERE A BUNCH OF SMART PEOPLE WOULD WORK AND KEEP
11:41:09 GOOD RECORDS. WOULD I BE OK IN THINKING ABOUT?
11:41:13 >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. >> BUT IN THE SENATE INTEL
11:41:21 REPORT THAT I'VE GOT, IT SAYS,CPD OFFICIALS COULD NOT
11:41:26 RECALL HOW THE OFFICE DECIDED TO CONTACT THE FORMER AMBASSADOR.
11:41:34 WASN'T THIS A VOLUNTARY LACK OF MEMORY OR WERE THERE -- WAS THIS
11:41:39 A VOLUNTARY LACK OF MEMORY OR NO NOTES ON IT?
11:41:43 HOW COULD THEY FORGET HOW THEY CAME ABOUT IN NAME THAT THEY
11:41:47 WERE FIXING TO SEND IT TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO CHECK ON THE
11:41:51 INTELLIGENCE OF IRAQ GETTING MATERIAL TO BUILD NUCLEAR BOMBS?
11:41:55 IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT FAR- FETCHED TO ME.
11:41:58 >> CONGRESSMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT INHIS PERIOD, IN THE RUN-
11:42:03 UP TO THE WAR, WE IN THE COUNTRY PROLIFERATION DIVISION OF THE
11:42:07 CIA WERE WORKING AS A FLAT OUT AS HARD AS WE COULD TO TRY TO
11:42:13 FIND GOOD, SOLID INTELLIGENCE FOR OUR SENIOR POLICY MAKERS
11:42:18 WANT THESE PRESUMED PROGRAMS. MY ROLE IN THIS WAS TO GO HOME
11:42:24 THAT NIGHT WITHOUT REVEALING ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OF COURSE
11:42:28 AND ASK MY HUSBAND WOULD HE BE WILLING TO COME IN TO CIA
11:42:31 HEADQUARTERS THE FOLLOWING WEEK AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE THERE.
11:42:36 AT THAT MEETING I INTRODUCED HIM AND I LEFT BECAUSE I DID HAVE
11:42:41 101 DIFFERENT THINGS I NEEDED TO DO.
11:42:44 >> BUT WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS, DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD NOT
11:42:47 HAVE BEEN A PAPER TRAIL OF HOW HIS NAME CAME ABOUT, WHO WOULD
11:42:53 HAVE MENTIONED IT FIRST -- I MEAN, TO ME, THIS IS A PRETTY
11:42:58 IMPORTANT ASSIGNMENT TO GIVE SOMEBODY AND MAYBE SOMEBODY WILL
11:43:03 WANT TO SAY, THAT WAS MY IDEA, THAT WAS MY GUY THAT I WAS
11:43:07 SENDING OVER THERE AND WHAT TO TAKE CREDIT FOR IT, BUT IT SEEMS
11:43:11 LIKE EVERYBODY IS RUNNING FROM IT.
11:43:12 >> CONGRESS MAN, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE
11:43:17 INTRODUCED IN THE LIBBY TRIAL WAS A MEMO OF THAT MEETING WHERE
11:43:23 IT STATES -- IN FACT, MY HUSBAND WAS NOT PARTICULARLY LOOKING
11:43:29 FORWARD -- HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY.
11:43:31 THERE HADEEN AT LEAST TWO OTHER REPORTS, ONE BY A THREE-
11:43:36 STAR GENERAL AND ONE AND BEST ON THE GROUND WHO SAID THERE WAS
11:43:39 REALLY MUCH TO THIS ALLEGATION. AND THE INR FOLKS AT THE MEETING
11:43:45 SAID, WELL, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS REALLY NECESSARY.
11:43:48 BUT IT WAS ULTIMATELY DECIDED THAT HE WOULD GO, USE HIS
11:43:52 CONTACTS, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE IN THE GOVERNMENT, TO SEE IF
11:43:55 THERE WAS ANYTHING MORE TO THIS. IT WAS A SERIOUS QUESTION ASKED
11:44:00 BY THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND IT DESERVES A
11:44:03 SERIOUS ANSWER. >> AREN'T YOU FAMILIAR WITH A
11:44:06 CHARLES GRANIER, A FORMER DIRECTOR MISSION MANAGER FOR THE
11:44:13 CIA? >> I KNOW OF HIM, SIR, YES.
11:44:16 >> TESTIFIED AT THE LEAD TRIAL -- LIBBY TRIAL THAT ALL HE KNEW
11:44:23 YOU WERE WORKING FOR THE COUNTER PROLIFERATION DIVISION, AND IT
11:44:27 COULD HAVE MEANT A NUMBER OF THINGS, DIFFERENT PEOPLE I
11:44:30 GUESS WORK AT THIS, SOME COVERT, SOME CLASSIFIED, SOME
11:44:34 UNDERCOVER, SOME DIFFERENT NAMES -- IS THAT TRUE THERE ARE
11:44:39 DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THIS COUNTRY
11:44:41 WITH RATION DIVISION? >> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS MOST
11:44:44 ACCURATE IS THAT MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE COUNTER
11:44:48 PROLIFERATION DIVISION ARE UNDER COVER OF SOME SORT.
11:44:51 >> OK. >> BUT HE DID WORK FOR THE CIA,
11:44:55 SO HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ALL OF THAT.
11:44:57 IS THAT TRUE? ARE YOU SAYING HE SHOULD HAVE
11:45:00 KNOWN THAT YOU WERE UNDERCOVER OR CLASSIFIED?
11:45:04 >> I AM SAYING THAT THE FACT WAS THAT MOST PEOPLE ON THE COUNTER
11:45:11 PROLIFERATION DIVISION WAS UNDERCOVER.
11:45:13 I AM NOT SPEAKING TO WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE
11:45:16 KNOWN, AS AN EMPLOYE HE HE WAS PROBABLY COGNIZANT OF THAT.
11:45:20 >> OK, AND YOU MENTIONED TAKING POLITICS OUT OF INTELLIGENCE.
11:45:28 AND YOUR HUSBAND -- WOULD YOU SAY HE WAS A DEMOCRAT OR
11:45:31 REPUBLICAN? >> ALTHOUGH MY HUSBAND COMES
11:45:36 FROM A REPUBLICAN FAMILY WITH DEEP ROOTS IN CALIFORNIA, I
11:45:40 WOULD SAY HE IS A DEMOCRAT NOW, CONGRESSMAN.
11:45:43 >> OK, AND JUST TO KIND OF KEEP SCORE, NOT THAT YOU WOULD PUT
11:45:47 YOURSELF IN ANY POLITICAL CATEGORY, WHICH YOU SAY YOU ARE
11:45:51 A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN? >> CONGRESSMAN, I AM NOT SURE
11:45:56 THAT THAT -- >> I KNOW, BUT THERE WAS A LIST
11:46:03 I COULD ASK YOU AND THAT WAS NOT ONE OF THEM, SO I WOULD NOTE --
11:46:07 >> YES, CONGRESSMAN, I AM A DEMOCRAT.
11:46:12 >> SO BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHO IS A REPUBLICAN, WHO EVIDENTLY
11:46:17 THOUGHT FROM HIS CIA BRIEFING THAT HE HAD GONE ONE DAY FELT
11:46:22 LIKE THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT FURTHER, THE REPORT
11:46:30 THAT NIGER WAS SELLING THIS YELLOW CAKE URANIUM TO IRAQ,
11:46:40 BACKED -- THAT HE WOULD GET SOME FURTHER INTEL ON IT.
11:46:47 BECAUSE THE, FRUSTRATION AND A LEASE SOMEBODY IN THE CIA --
11:46:51 THEY CALLED A COUNTER PROLIFERATION OF THE SOMEBODY IN
11:46:54 THE CIA, BUT A DEMOCRAT, OR IN THE SOMEONE WHO MAY BE
11:46:58 AFFILIATED IN THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, PRESENT OR SUPPOSEDLY
11:47:03 PRESENT OR AT LEAST VOUCHED FOR HER HUSBAND WHO HAS COME FROM A
11:47:09 GOOD REPUBLICAN FAMILY WHO HAVE LOST HIS WAY AND BECOME A
11:47:13 DEMOCRAT, BUT -- MY POINT IS, BUT IN THIS PIECE TITLED "WHAT I
11:47:19 DIDN'T FIND IN AFRICA, " HE DISPUTES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
11:47:23 CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT NIGER WAS SELLING IT.
11:47:28 BUT YOU, COMING FROM AN INTELLIGENCE BACKGROUND, YOU
11:47:33 DON'T JUST DEPEND ON ONE REPORT FROM ONE COUNTRY FOR ONE SOURCE
11:47:42 TO BASE ALL OF YOUR INTELLIGENCE ON, DO YOU?
11:47:48 WOULDN'T YOU GATHERED FROM A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SOURCES AND
11:47:51 THEN KIND OF PUT TOGETHER AND LOOK AT IT AND NOT JUST ONE FROM
11:47:56 -- ONE PARTICULAR? >> MUNTARI, CONGRESSMAN.
11:48:02 >> DEGENERES TIME HAS EXPIRED. LAST QUESTION.
11:48:04 I GUESS, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY LAST COMMENT WOULD BE TO YOU IS THAT
11:48:08 I STILL THINK IT IS A SHAME THAT WE BROUGHT MRS. WILSON HERE AND
11:48:12 THE PRESS CAME AND ALL THESE GOOD PEOPLE CAME TO WITNESS ALL
11:48:16 OF THIS AND THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A SPECTACLE THAT WE WOULD NOT
11:48:19 GET TO ESCO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE.
11:48:21 >> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME JUST SAY, I
11:48:25 THINK WHAT IS CLEAR HERE, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS A TERRIBLE THING
11:48:32 THAT ANY CIA OPERATIVE WOULD BE ALTERED.
11:48:34 BUT WHAT IS DIFFICULT AND WHAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
11:48:37 ESTABLISH HERE IS WHO KNEW WHO WAS UNDERCOVER AND HE WAS AN A
11:48:41 COVERT STATUS. I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK OF
11:48:44 THIS. BUT IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
11:48:45 THE PEOPLE OUT IN THIS OR PURSUING THIS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF
11:48:48 THE COVERT STATUS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT
11:48:51 POINT. THINK OF VERMONT.
11:48:53 MRS. PLAME, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO BE HERE.
11:48:56 >> THANK YOU, MR. CONGRESSMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS.
11:49:00 I WANT TO YIELD TO MISS NORTON FOR FIVE MINUTES.
11:49:08 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THANK YOU, MRS. WILSON, AS OTHERS HAVE
11:49:13 SENT YOU FOR YOUR EXTRA RESOURCE TO OUR COUNTRY.
11:49:18 -- EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
11:49:23 I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
11:49:30 BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, IT IS THE EXECUTIVE
11:49:35 ORDER 12958. IT IS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER,
11:49:44 PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT INDICATES WHAT THE
11:49:58 REQUIREMENTS ARE TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.
11:50:06 IN SUMMARY, THEY ARE BACKGROUND CHECK, OFFICIAL NEED TO KNOW,
11:50:21 AND I AM PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE OFFICIALLY NEED TO KNOW
11:50:25 AND ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE MIDDLE CHART, THE MIDDLE PART OF
11:50:31 THE CHART WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE AND OTHER OFFICIALS, STATE
11:50:42 DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, ARE LISTED.
11:50:47 CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASON THAT ANY OF THOSE OFFICIALS WOULD
11:50:53 HAVE HAD A REASON TO KNOW IN YOUR IDENTITY, AND IN
11:50:57 PARTICULAR, AS A COVERT AGENT? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, THERE WAS NO
11:51:06 NEED TO KNOW MY SPECIFIC IDENTITY OTHER BAND THAT I WAS A
11:51:10 CIA OFFICER, ACCORDING -- OTHER THAN THAT I WAS A CIA OFFICER
11:51:15 ACCORDING TO THE CHART. NONE WHATSOEVER.
11:51:25 COULD I ASK YOU WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR REVIEW
11:51:31 BETWEEN DISCLOSING THE IDENTITY OF A COVERT AGENT AND DISCLOSING
11:51:37 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION? WHAT IF ANY DIFFERENCE WOULD
11:51:41 THERE BE? >> I THINK THE IMAGE IN EITHER
11:51:48 CASE COULD BE EQUALLY DEVASTATING, IT WOULD SIMPLY
11:51:52 DEPEND ON WHAT THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OF -- WAS, BUT
11:51:57 CERTAINLY REVEALING OPPORTUNIST TRUE IDENTITY IS A DEVASTATING.
11:52:05 -- I OPERATIVES TRUE IDENTITY IS DEVASTATING.
11:52:08 I WAS WORKING TO TRY TO FIND THE IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
11:52:13 PROGRAMS AND WHAT THEY WERE UP TO.
11:52:14 >> I SUPPOSE WE COULD ALL THINK OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
11:52:17 INVOLVING OUR COUNTRY THAT WOULD HAVE A DEVASTATING AFFECT ON ALL
11:52:21 OF US. DISCLOSING THE NAME OF A
11:52:30 CLASSIFIED AGENT MIGHT HAVE A DEVASTATING AFFECT ON THE MORE
11:52:34 THAN THAT AGENTS CAREER, IS THIS NOT THE CASE?
11:52:36 >> ABSOLUTELY, CONGRESSWOMAN. THE RIPPLE EFFECT GO OUT WORD,
11:52:45 -- OUT WORD IN QUITE WIDE CIRCLES.
11:52:50 ALL THE CONTACTS THROUGH THE YEARS, EITHER INNOCENT OR IN A
11:52:55 PROFESSIONAL MANNER, THE AGENTS, THE NETWORKS, MUCH IS TAKEN OUT.
11:52:59 >> ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT DISCLOSING THE
11:53:05 IDENTITY OF A COVERT AGENT COULD RESULT IN THE DEATH OF A THAT
11:53:12 AGENT, AND HASN'T OCCURRED BEFORE IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY
11:53:15 COURSE #>> YES, IT HAS. >> IF IN FACT A OFFICIAL OF ANY
11:53:29 KIND DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL REASON TO KNOW YOUR STATUS, IN
11:53:37 YOUR VIEW, WITHOUT BE A VIOLATION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
11:53:41 WHICH LISTS THE NEED TO KNOW, OFFICIAL NEED TO KNOW AS A
11:53:45 REASON -- AS A REASON FOR HAVING CLASSIFIED OF PERMISSION?
11:53:51 >> YES, CONGRESSMAN AND, I WOULD THINK SO.
11:53:54 IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION. >> ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES
11:54:06 QUESTIONED YOU REGARDING THE ACCUSATION THAT OVER AGAIN WAS
11:54:13 REPEATED IN THE PRESS AND FOR THAT MATTER BY A NUMBER OF
11:54:18 PUBLIC OFFICIALS, THAT IT WAS YOU WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR
11:54:24 HUSBAND'S BEING SELECTED TO GO ON THE CONTROVERSIAL TRIP AT
11:54:29 ISSUE. >> AS --
11:54:34 >> -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS PERSON HAS INDEED THAT HE WAS
11:54:39 NOT THE PERSON WHO INDICATED THAT YOU HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE
11:54:47 FOR THE SELECTION OF YOUR HUSBAND TO GO TO NIGER.
11:54:55 IF THAT IS THE CASE, WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT WOULD BE
11:55:00 INAPPROPRIATE FOR US OR OTHERS TO RELY ON THE INFORMATION THAT
11:55:11 A CIA OFFICIAL HAD SAID THAT YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
11:55:16 SELECTION OF YOUR HUSBAND TO GO? >> THAT'S INCORRECT.
11:55:23 A SENIOR AGENCY OFFICERS SAID SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS
11:55:27 TRIP. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD
11:55:31 THAT CERTAINLY I HAD NO POLITICAL AGENDA AT THE TIME OF
11:55:34 MY HUSBAND'S TRIP, JOE HAD NO POLITICAL AGENDA, WE WERE BOTH
11:55:39 LOOKING TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND
11:55:45 THAT THE CIA OFFICIAL TO WHICH I REFER HAND IN FACT SAID THAT
11:55:51 IN WRITING AND I ASK THAT YOU TRY TO GET THE MEMORANDUM OF
11:55:57 THAT OFFICIAL THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE OR SHE WAS NOT
11:56:02 RESPONSIBLE FOR DISINFORMATION. >> WE WILL TRY TO GET THAT
11:56:06 INFORMATION. FENN A THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
11:56:10 CHAIRMAN. >> MR. DAVIS?
11:56:11 >> AMIS AS BEST YOU TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
11:56:14 YOU NOTED THAT WHEN YOU LEARNED ABOUT THIS YOUR HUSBAND PICKED
11:56:16 UP THE PAPER AND SAID HE DID IT -- YOU REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY,
11:56:21 HE DID IT. WAS HE REFERRING TO BOB NOVAK,
11:56:25 THE IN THE STATION, AND DID YOU KNOW IT WAS PERCOLATING?
11:56:27 >> HE WAS REFERRING TO MR. BOB NOVAK.
11:56:32 WE HAD INDICATIONS IN THE WEEK PRIOR THAT MR. NOVAK KNEW MY
11:56:35 IDENTITY AND MY TRUE EMPLOYER AND I, OF COURSE, ALERTED MY
11:56:43 SUPERIORS AT THE AGENCY AND WAS TOLD, THE WARWICK, WE WILL TAKE
11:56:46 CARE OF THIS. AND IT WAS MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE
11:56:50 THAT HE READ ABOUT THIS JULY 14. >> DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR SUPERIORS
11:56:54 AT THE AGENCY DID ANYTHING AT THAT POINT TO STOP THE OUTING?
11:56:57 YOU THINK IT WOULD PICK UP THE PHONE AND SAID THIS WAS A
11:57:01 SERIOUS MATTER, THIS WAS A CRIME.
11:57:04 >> ABSOLUTELY. I BELIEVE, AND THIS IS WHAT I
11:57:07 READ, THAT THE THEN SPOKESMAN, MR. HARLOW SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH
11:57:11 MR. NOVAK AND SAID TO ALONG THE LINES OF, DON'T GO WITH THIS,
11:57:15 DON'T DO THIS. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE
11:57:18 SAID, BUT CLEARLY COMMUNICATE THE MESSAGE THAT MR. NOVAK
11:57:22 SHOULD NOT PUBLISH MINING. >> YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE SAID
11:57:25 THIS COULD BE A VIOLATION OF LAW, SHE IS COVERT --
11:57:29 >> I HAVE NO IDEA. >> ONE OF THE LONG-TERM
11:57:33 CONCERNS OUTSIDE -- THAT AUDI OF AN AGENT IS A VERY SERIOUS
11:57:37 BUSINESS THAT I THINK HAS DISTRESSED BY BOTH SIDES, BUT
11:57:41 IF NO ONE KNOWS THAT YOU ARE COVERT IT IS HARD TO SHOW ANY
11:57:45 VIOLATION OF LAW, BUT IF YOU HAVE NOTICED, THAT IS A
11:57:48 DIFFERENT ISSUE. YOU DID THE APPROPRIATE THING OF
11:57:51 NOTIFYING YOUR SUPERIORS THAT THIS WAS PERCOLATING IN THE ONE
11:57:54 NOT ABLE TO STOP IT. IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?
11:57:56 >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MRS. WILSON, YOU COULD BE A
11:58:09 DEMOCRAT BECOME A BEACON THE REPUBLICAN, NO ONE ASKS OUR
11:58:11 SERVICEMEN OR CIA OPERATIVES WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IN TERMS OF
11:58:15 THE POLITICS. THEY GO OUT AND SERVE OUR
11:58:17 COUNTRY. THEY ARE NOT ACTING AS DEMOCRATS
11:58:21 AS -- OR REPUBLICANS, THEY WERE ACTING AS AMERICAN.
11:58:27 FACTS ARE NOT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
11:58:31 YOUR HUSBAND REVEAL THE THE FALSEHOOD OF THE REASON THE
11:58:37 PRESIDENT LEAVES TO GO TO WAR AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN IN IRAQ.
11:58:43 AND THE REASON HE GAVE, EVEN IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS,
11:58:46 WAS THAT A WEAPON OF MASS DESCRIPTION THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN
11:58:52 -- DISCRETION THAT SOME OF THE ST. WOULD HAVE OR COULD SOON
11:58:55 HAVE IS A NUCLEAR BOMB. THAT WAS VERY SOBERING, BUT IT
11:59:00 WAS FALSE. AND WHEN YOUR HUSBAND WROTE THE