A Question for WilliamPitt - Re: Woodward's statement

[Terre]

Hi William - Hope you see this post, and to anyone else reading please feel free to chime in.

I have a question. In the past you interviewed Ray McGovern, who was a former CIA analyst, and I'm wondering if you could ask him a few questions, or maybe this has been discussed somewhere already and I just can't find it?

Woodward stated, in part:

Fitzgerald asked for my impression about the context in which Mrs. Wilson was mentioned. I testified that the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive. I testified that according to my understanding an analyst in the CIA is not normally an undercover position.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501829.html

I'm wondering how true Woodward's statement (bolded above) could be?

Is he asking us to believe that a CIA analyst shouldn't be considered classified in some way? Is it common knowledge, or generally understood, that CIA analysts are usually considered as "desk type" jobs or not undercover? What does the intelligence community or WH officials generally first think when someone is mentioned as a CIA analyst?

If so, personally I find that difficult to swallow. I know if someone told me that they worked for the CIA (no matter what the job), my eyebrows would certainly raise with a "REALLY?"

Is there anything that Woodward has written in the past that would indicate he feels that CIA analyst work is basically "NOT undercover work"? I think he's lying about his "understanding" but have no way to prove it, or at the least, cast doubt on it.

My apologies for all the questions, but this part of his statement really bugs me.

Hope you, Ray, or anyone else here at DU can help, or point me in the right direction.

[marylanddem]

1. Very good question - I hope someone can answer it! nt

[opihimoimoi]

4. My understanding, without links, is Plame was under cover

She was in a "front company" and had many contacts. Because she was outed...all ops had to be negated and some were put into danger.

Other agents are nervous they too could be exposed in an expidient manner....

The Pubs did great damage to our spy network...after all, they save many lives and much misery with their work. Read History and how spies help their respective Nations...

[SteppingRazor]

2. Generally speaking, anyone who doesn't report to the DO...

is probably not undercover.

My own experience with intelligence officials is, admittedly, quite limited (so correct me if I'm wrong, Pitt et. al.), but the vast majority of case workers, field agents and other assorted "spook" types report to the Director of Operations.

Analysts, again speaking generally, report to the Director of Analysis.

So, in very broad terms, yes, someone who is termed a "CIA analyst" could be assumed to not be undercover. But it's a pretty dangerous assumption to make.

I believe the DO of the CIA at the time of the Plame outing was James Pavitt. Unsure whether or not Plame reported to him, directly or indirectly or at all.

[Terre]

5. Thanks for that insight

But it's a pretty dangerous assumption to make.

And that's what I'm having difficulty accepting - that Woodward would make the assumption that she wasn't undercover, no matter "how" her status was revealed to him.

I think that statement of his was simply a CYA story. However, if the "common belief" is that the term analyst is to be construed as NOT undercover, then maybe Woodward is speaking the truth.

[SteppingRazor]

7. It's the common belief, but...

There are certainly exceptions, and a guy like Woodward had to have known that, and certainly should have been intelligent enough to do his homework. Woodward's not an idiot, and he has decades of experience that should have told him better.

Of course, he didn't use the name, just heard it. So while he probably should have said something, I don't damn him the same way I do Bob Novak.

[Terre]

9. Eggsactly

...and a guy like Woodward had to have known that...

That's exactly my thinking of it, which is why I feel he's trying to downplay the significance, and by doing so, he's throwing more "sand" in the eyes of Fitz.

[Spazito]

10. No question, Woodward was/is in Naval intelligence, there is no way

he wouldn't know better, imo.

[Zen Democrat]

6. They were claiming his CIA analyst wife was sending Wilson to Niger?

Would an analyst be in any position to send someone on an overseas mission? Plame didn't have the authority to send her husband and she was a NOC, for goodness sake! How much less would a non-covert analyst have this authority? The whole thing does not make sense at all. They are all L-Y-I-N-G.

[electropop]

8. My understanding is she did report to the DO.

She was up to her neck in a front company and was operating under "No Official Cover" (NOC), the most dangerous kind of undercover job because there's nowhere to turn and no official support if you're caught. The unveiling of Plame-WIlson, and especially of Brewster-Jennings (the front company) caused terrible harm to our international WMD efforts and endangered us greatly. This was a major purpose of her outing, because Brewster-Jennings was getting too close to the Regime's (esp Cheney's) shady WMD dealings for profit.

[librechik]

3. yes, there was a discussion about Novak's terminology

he used the word "operative" which is normally applied to an undercover person. Later he wanted to take that back. He said he had an unconscious way of calling analysts operatives, and we shouldn't take from his use of "operative" that he knew Plame was undercover. Analysts are not considered undercover.

They are just trying to get cute with semantics. They know they committed a crime, or at least a professional impropriety. An ethical person, if there was any doubt, would not have discussed Plame , even as gossip, incase she might be undercover.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Here's what McGovern said in September 2003

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."

McGovern further elaborated on the damage done when such an agent has their cover blown. "This causes a great deal of damage," said McGovern. "These kinds of networks take ten years to develop. The reason why they operate under deep cover is that the only people who have access to the kind of data we need cannot be associated in any way with the American intelligence community. Our operatives live a lie to maintain these networks, and do so out of patriotism. When they get blown, the operatives themselves are in physical danger. The people they recruit are also in physical danger, because foreign intelligence services can make the connections and find them. Operatives like Valerie Plame are real patriots."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/093003A.shtml

Woodward is full of crap about this 'analyst' thing. He should and does know better. He wrote a book called "CIA" way back when. The fact that he is playing dumb right now indicates he is covering.

[Terre]

12. Thanks SO much Will

for taking the time to comment, for pointing me in the direction of your piece, and for the tidbit of information about Woodward's other book, which I knew nothing about.

You've been very helpful.