Libby trial shows unsealed lips in CIA

From their earliest days, U.S. intelligence agencies have made it an article of faith to protect the identity of their secret agents. And in 1982, following a rash of malicious exposures, the CIA prevailed on Congress to make it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of such operatives.

So in 2003, when the name of a CIA arms proliferation specialist, Valerie Plame, surfaced in a newspaper column, the agency immediately demanded a Justice Department investigation.

But last week, as former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby went on trial in connection with the leak, it appeared that neither the CIA nor some other intelligence community insiders were all that tight-lipped about such supposedly sensitive matters.

When it came to talking to outsiders, the agent’s identity was often treated as not much more than water-cooler dishing or cocktail party chatter.

A high-level CIA official dropped Plame’s agency connection into a conversation with a White House aide who did not know Plame existed. Another CIA official confessed that it was only after he had mentioned the agent’s name to an official outside the agency that he felt a twinge of regret -- a kind of belated “oops” -- over what he had done.

And former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, a possible witness in the Libby trial, has acknowledged discussing Plame with a reporter. Armitage, an old hand at dealing with sensitive intelligence matters, later told a friend that gabbing about Plame was “the dumbest thing he’d ever done in his life.”

The agent’s identity wound up being a subject of discussion inside Washington’s sprawling national security community after it was unveiled in a syndicated newspaper column. Libby is accused of lying to federal investigators looking into who leaked Plame’s name to the columnist.

Plame is the wife of former envoy Joseph C. Wilson IV, who publicly raised questions about the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The revelations thus far in Libby’s trial suggest that, though U.S. officials -- especially within the Bush administration -- have publicly insisted that secrecy is crucial in national security matters, there is a backstage world inside the government where even the most basic rules for protecting sensitive information may be ignored.

In theory, sensitive intelligence is highly compartmentalized and shared only on a need-to-know basis with people who have been cleared to receive it.

That was hardly the case with Plame.

In one instance described last week, the CIA’s then-chief public affairs officer, William Harlow, apparently brought her name up almost in passing during a 2003 telephone conversation with his counterpart in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.

The White House official, Catherine J. Martin, then Cheney’s director of communications, said, “It was a pleasant conversation. I had never spoken with him before.”

Martin was calling about a report in the Washington Post that an unnamed diplomat had turned up evidence contradicting Bush administration claims about Iraq trying to get nuclear material from Niger. The story, and others that followed, said the diplomat had been sent to the African nation because of Cheney.

The vice president was upset over being linked to the venture, which undercut White House arguments about the Iraq threat.

Martin testified that Libby suggested she call Harlow.

“I remember talking about press reports about a former ambassador sent to Niger, and the press reports saying it was because of an inquiry by the vice president,” she said.

“So I was saying, ‘Who sent him? Who is this guy? And what are you saying to the press? It keeps getting reported that we sent him,’ ” Martin testified.

“Ultimately, I remember Bill Harlow saying his name was Joe Wilson, he was a charge in Baghdad and his wife works over here.”

Harlow, responding to an e-mail request, declined to comment, citing the pending trial.

Libby allegedly learned that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA from the agency’s top expert on Iraq, who testified Wednesday that he regretted passing along the tip.

Former CIA official Robert Grenier said he gave Libby the information. He said he had not remembered doing so when he initially spoke with investigators but recalled it later because he had a lingering feeling that he had done something he regretted.

“I recall feeling briefly guilty about it, that I had said too much,” Grenier said. “By saying that Joe Wilson’s wife was working in CIA, in effect I was revealing the identity of a CIA officer.”

The law does not forbid all disclosures. It targets only leaks of identities of covert operatives and incidents where the recipient does not have a security clearance to receive the information. Libby, as Cheney’s national security advisor and chief of staff, presumably had high-level security clearances.

But Grenier said he still had qualms about his actions “because it was not absolutely necessary for me to have said that.... Our habit is, if you don’t need to say something, you don’t.”

CIA officials weren’t the only ones trafficking in information about Plame. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, scheduled to testify Monday, apparently disclosed her identity to several reporters.

Afterward, he was so concerned that he might have broken the law that he refused to cooperate with investigators until he was granted immunity from prosecution.

Plame had worked overseas, posing as a private energy consultant while working for a CIA department tracking weapons proliferation. Although she had been working at CIA headquarters at the time of the leak, the disclosure ended her clandestine career and could have endangered people who had helped her abroad.

In part, the readiness of intelligence officials to bring Plame into conversations with White House officials reflected an unspoken reality of politics and power in Washington: The CIA is an independent agency, but it serves the president and other high officials -- who not only use the intelligence it provides but pass judgment on its performance.

“The CIA works both sides of the street, satisfying the political bosses while protecting turf and tradition,” said Williams Banks, a professor at Syracuse University law school and a national security expert. “Ironic for sure, but part of the Washington fabric.”

The political pressures were especially intense when the Plame case broke in 2003. The CIA was under White House scrutiny because of intelligence failures preceding the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war.

The pressure was clear in Grenier’s testimony:

The former CIA official recalled taking a call from Libby, who, with what Grenier described as a “slightly accusatory tone in his voice,” wanted to know whether the CIA was involved in sending Wilson to Africa and whether it had done so because of interest expressed by Cheney’s office.

“It was pretty clear from the context that he wanted answers as quick as I could get them. It was unusual for him to be calling me in the first place.”

Grenier said he called an individual who worked in the CIA counter-proliferation division who informed him about the trip and that Wilson’s wife was working in the unit that had sent Wilson there.

Before Grenier could report back to Libby, he said, Libby’s office had him called out of a meeting with the CIA director. “I don’t think I had ever been called out of a meeting with the director before or since,” Grenier said.

“I told him, in fact, it was true that the CIA had sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. And how much else I said about it I really don’t recall. I may have mentioned he was debriefed and a report was written.”

Question: “In your conversation with Mr. Libby, did you also talk about information you had learned about Ambassador Wilson’s wife?”

Answer: “I believe I did.”

Question: “Can you tell us about that?”

Answer: “I mentioned that, only in passing, I said something to the effect, in fact, Ambassador Wilson’s wife works here.”

Question: “You felt that was a piece of information that was or should be passed on to Mr. Libby?”

Answer: “I’m not sure it should have been passed on to Mr. Libby. The reason why I said it, I wanted to be as forthcoming as I possibly could.”

Assessing Grenier’s testimony, Larry Johnson, a retired CIA and State Department counter-terrorism expert, said, “They wanted to avoid any unpleasantness with the vice president.”

Besides, Johnson said, “If you can’t give the vice president and president information with any degree of confidence that it is going to be protected, then you know, the entire game is up.”

rick.schmitt@latimes.com