POAC XIX: Chemical weapon?

This post fulfills the goal of documenting 16 flops in the "Counterspin" attempt of the Project for the Old American Century.

I got through 15 flubs going more-or-less in order (which became tricky after I took a hiatus from the project and the page was rearranged). I took my time choosing the final entry. Many of the remaining "Counterspin" attempts concerned alleged talking points that weren't worth defending, and the justifications looked like they'd be at least ball-park accurate. If the author (T. J. Templeton, as I understand it) sticks with the type of material represented by most of the recent additions, it will count as an improvement.

But on to business.

The alleged talking point:

The use of white phosphorous in Fallujah doesn't count as a chemical weapons attack

Well, it can definitely be used as a weapon, and it's definitely a chemical ... but so is lead, depending on the definition we use.

Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

The unclassified Dept of Defense Source Document that identifies white phosphorus as a chemical weapon. See section II C and the definitions at TAB A

Two URLS, and they'll be treated in order.

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons."
(ThinkProgress)

This citation ultimately bases its case on an internal Pentagon paper. I'll get to that at the end.

In short, the Pentagon statement is exactly right, and the internal paper is irrelevant.

A Bit of History:

The attack in Fallujah, in this case, occurred in November of 2004. The stink at the time was an allegation from an Italian journalist that white phosphorus had been used to target civilians in Fallujah. How one can make that claim when insurgents wear civilian clothing and commonly use civilians as shields in order to wage media war ... is a good question.

One particularly important thing to remember is that military forces circled Fallujah before attacking, and allowed substantial time for civilians to leave the city.

The assault on Fallujah that was to occur in November 2004 was among the most widely telegraphed attacks in American military history. The US and Iraqi forces had no chance of executing any major surprise, though, as you will see, they did achieve some surprise. For its part, the enemy since April had the time to regroup, reorganize, dig in, resupply, reinforce and prepare. Debriefing reports from our troops and embedded reporters reflect that the enemy did all of that, and did it very well. As you will see, the Americans had time to prepare a very detailed plan of attack, and had the time to acquire intelligence that would hold US forces in good stead when the time came to attack.

Official estimates, confirmed by many Iraqis who remained in the city, were that about 75 percent of the population had left, heeding the American and Iraqi government warnings of impending doom (some say as many as 90 percent left; hard to tell). If you accept a population figure of 300,000, and the 75 percent evacuation figure, that would leave something on the order of 75,000 people left in the city.
(talkingproud.us)

In short, considerable pains were taken to avoid civilian casualties. Surprise was forsaken for the sake of civilians.

It should not surprise if the insurgents deliberately kept civilians near their positions in order to wage media war.

But then POAC isn't really concerned about that aspect of the attack. Templeton is apparently convinced that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.

Here's what the BBC reported:

WHITE PHOSPHORUS

• Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
• Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
• Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
• Protocol III not signed by US

(BBC--see embedded sidebar)

And here's the text of of Protocol III:

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Article 1
Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.


Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
(Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

First, note that the United States has never ratified Protocol III (objecting that it is overbroad to the point of potentially forcing the military in some instances to allow greater civilian casualities because of its prohibitions).

Second, note that the U.S. arguably stayed within the bounds of the treaty anyway. The white phosphorus used in Fallujah was used primarily for screening, and secondarily to flush insurgents out of hiding. Both are permissible uses under the CCCW.

And, obviously, white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon according to the laws of war, or else it would not be covered under the CCCW.

So, what about this Pentagon paper? Well, it was an "information report." In essence, some guy phoned his "brother" in Iraq and the guy told him that "phosphorus chemical weapons" had been used in Iraq following the Gulf War.

The term is apparently not a Pentagon designation, but the terminology chosen by the source of the information. The term did end up in the summary title of the report.

In any case, the Pentagon doesn't decide what is and what isn't a chemical weapon according to the laws of war.

***

Now for another Pentagon document, courtesy of the second URL. This one is apparently based at least in part on the document we just considered.

Templeton thinks that sections IIc and TAB A show that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.

Soon after the cease-fire, US forces began to receive reports from Shiia refugees that described Iraqi government attacks on their cities. Some reports indicated that the government used mustard (a blister agent), as well as napalm and white phosphorus against the Shiias.^[9] Other reports denied that government forces had used chemical warfare agents against their city, but claimed they had used weapons containing napalm and white phosphorus.^[10] One refugee report provides a compilation of accounts from 150 Shiia refugees and alleges the use of all these substances, as well as hydrochloric and sulfuric acid.^[11] Unfortunately, none of the refugees provided a technical or otherwise accurate identification of the weapons that were used by the Iraqi government, whether they contained a chemical warfare agent or not. In addition, many of the refugees had no training or technical understanding of weapons. As the compilation report indicates, these refugees generally categorized the weapons as "chemical."^[12] This fact, coupled with the difficulty of accurately translating these reports, complicated our attempts to determine the accuracy of the allegations of chemical warfare agent use by the Iraqi government.
(IIc)

There's nothing there that enables a logical conclusion that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Read it 20 times and that won't change--unless you're hallucinating by that point.

Well, how about TAB A?

This tab provides a listing of acronyms and abbreviations found in this report. Additionally, the glossary section provides definitions for selected technical terms that are not found in common usage.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CIA	Central Intelligence Agency
CW	chemical warfare
CWA	chemical warfare agent
DIA	Defense Intelligence Agency
MASH	mobile army surgical hospital
NBC	nuclear, biological, and chemical
SITREP	situation report
US	United States
USAMRICD	US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense
USCENTCOM	United States Central Command

Glossary

Blister agent	A blister agent is a chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Blister agents include mustards, arsenicals like lewisite, and mustard and lewisite mixtures. Blister agents are also called vesicants or vesicant agents.[48]
Blood agent	A blood agent is a chemical warfare agent that is inhaled and absorbed into the blood, carrying the agent to all body tissues where it interferes with the tissue oxygenation process. The brain is especially affected. The effect on the brain leads to cessation of respiration followed by cardiovascular collapse.[49]
Chemical warfare agent	A chemical warfare agent is a chemical substance, excluding riot control agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame, used in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate though its physiological effects. Included are blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents.[50]
Conventional weapon	A conventional weapon is a weapon that is neither nuclear, biological, nor chemical.[51]
Mustard	A mustard agent is a blister chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract.[52]
Nerve agents	Nerve agents are the most toxic of the chemical warfare agents. Nerve agents are absorbed into the body through breathing, by injection, or absorption through the skin. They affect the nervous and the respiratory systems and various body functions.[54]
Riot control agent	A riot control agent is a chemical that produces transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure and rarely require medical treatment. Riot control agents are effective in quelling civil disturbances and in preventing unnecessary loss of life.[55]
White Phosphorus	White phosphorus is a form of phosphorus which creates spectacular bursts when used in artillery shells and is very damaging to the skin since it burns on exposure to oxygen.[56]

(TAB A)



The first thing to notice is the definition of "Chemical Warfare Agent." The definition gives us no reason to include white phosphorus--but it could be argued that it provides no strong reason to exclude it, either. The definition does specify the inclusion "blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents" but one might argue that the list does not exclude additional categories.

On the other hand, "Blister Agent," "Blood Agent," "Mustard" and "Nerve Agent" are all specifically defined as chemical warfare agents. The "White Phosphorus" entry includes no such distinction.

There is no reasonable evidence in this document that white phosphorus is considered a chemical warfare agent by the Pentagon, even if we were to suppose that the Pentagon had some role in defining the term for purposes of the international laws of war.
***

Congratulations, Project for the Old American Century. You're on the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.

POAC XVIII: Al Gore & the Internet

Eighteenth in a continuing series on the "Counterspin" page at People for the Old American Century. One more clunker and POAC is inducted into the Bad Blog's Blood blogroll of bad blogs.

It's not this one, however. POAC wisely punted to Snopes.com which, along with Annenberg Political Fact Check (FactCheck.org), is where anyone with good sense would go to resolve questions about these issues rather than going to POAC Counterspin.

I think that Snopes.com misses the mark by a bit on this one, however, since referring to Gore's Internet claim was primarily a case of hyperbole used to highlight Gore's tendency toward self-aggrandizement. Snopes.com did make note of it, but probably underemphasized it in their answer: "... although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving) ...").

Snopes.com accurately notes that the hyperbole is misleading; and I would add for those unaware of Gore's pattern of exaggerating aspects of his career. For that reason, use of the claim as hyperbole should be adequately clear in the context that it is used.

POAC XVII: Who stopped the recount?

Seventeenth in a continuing series, peeling away the spin of the "Counterspin" page at the Project for the Old American Century.

The supposed talking point:

It was the Democrats who stopped the vote count in 2000

Really? Which vote count?
T. J. Templeton, who has admitted being the author of POAC's Counterspin entries, has this habit of using unattributed "talking points," so it is often hard to tell what the original claim is supposed to have meant.

Just from memory, I recall a number of separate vote counts in Florida in the wake of the 2000 election. I seem to recall that the Broward County vote count was stopped temporarily because of uncertainty about the legalities, and some of that probably stemmed from Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' determination that certain counties were proceeding with inappropriate vote counts.

Harris made that determination on the advice of a law group dominated by Democrats, I will add.

How pervasive was this talking point? I searched for the exact phrase with Google and got one hit. That hit was--you guessed it!--POAC Counterspin.

So how does Templeton debunk this mysterious talking point? Perhaps we may obtain a clue as to what the talking point is simply by considering the response.

The man Bush tapped to fill Karl Rove’s spot as his policy advisor is none other than Joel Kaplan, who took part in the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” of 2000. That’s when a bunch of Washington GOP operatives, posing as outraged Floridians, waved fists, chanted “Stop the fraud!” and pounded windows in an effort to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount effort.

John Bolton: "Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

Bush gave plum jobs to supporters who worked recount

Three URLs this time. As usual, I'll treat the URLs in order of occurrence.

The new White House policy chief, who is filling Karl Rove’s shoes in that post, took part in the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” of 2000, in which GOP operatives, dressed as protesters, tried to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount. (Via Truthout.)
(Truthdig)

If you're wondering how Joe Kaplan taking part in the "infamous 'Brooks Brothers Riot'" amounts to a falsification of a claim that the Democrats stopped the vote count in Florida, then I'm with you.

Well, let's follow the links and see if we accomplish anything other than chasing a wild goose.

What about that "infamous" riot, anyway?

That's when a bunch of Washington GOP operatives, posing as outraged Floridians, waved fists, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and pounded windows in an effort to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount effort.
(TPMMuckraker)

So far nothing about who stopped a vote count, though perhaps the intent is to show that Republicans were responsible for intimidating the people (Democrats?) who stopped the vote count temporarily.

How did they pose as outraged Floridians, I wonder? Was the chant more involved than Muckraker presented it, something more like "We're outraged Floridians and we want you to stop the fraud!"? Or did they just rent cars with Florida license plates (oh, the deviousness of that!)?

Well, maybe it was the pounding on the windows that stopped the vote count.

article.php is deprecated
(smirkingchimp.com)

That trail ends with a broken link.

I suppose I'm left to my own devices.

Aired November 22, 2000 - 1:27 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Miami-Dade County's canvassing board has just voted 3-0 to stop all recounts after a contentious morning there. And we'll continue to talk with our correspondent about those developments. But that perhaps puts all the focus on Palm Beach County and Broward County and the question surrounding those absentee ballots.
(CNN)

And from a little later in the same transcript:

CHRIS BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Frank, the Gore campaign officials that I've been able to reach are just stunned by this setback, the decision from the Miami-Dade officials. They say they believe that the Miami-Dade County officials have been intimidated by the Republicans, that there was a near-riot this morning at the courthouse where they were trying to count those ballots. And they believe that there's no question there's a relationship between that near-riot this morning and this decision. They say this is part of a pattern of Republican obstructionist tactics, and this is one of their greatest concerns the Republicans will try to slow down if not stop this count before the deadline on Sunday -- Frank.
(ibid)

OK, so Gore team officials thought that the riot definitely influenced the Miami-Dade decision. What did the county canvassing board say?

JIM LEHRER: There were several major developments today in the Presidential recount in Florida. In Miami-Dade County, election officials halted their hand counting. They said they could not finish by Sunday. Vice President Gore's campaign appealed that decision. Last night, the Florida Supreme Court ruled hand counts must be included in the state's final tally, if completed by Sunday.
(PBS)

The Miami-Dade canvassing board halted its manual recount because it looked like it would be a waste of money, in other words. Was the GOP riot team just concerned about the manual recount?

This section of the same PBS transcript encapsulates that aspect of the story:

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But today in south Florida, partisan fighting escalated after the Miami-Dade canvassing board said it didn't have time to recount of all its 650,000 ballots. Instead, the Democratically controlled board decided to hand count just those ballots not counted by the machines, a move denounced by Republican leaders.

Florida election law in 2000 allowed no provision in the protest of election return procedure for a county canvassing board to only canvass undervotes.

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.

(Florida Statutes for year 2000, Title IX, 102.166)

The PBS reporting also provides a hint or two that the Miami-Dade recount was not open to the public (note the clamoring by the protesters that they be permitted to witness the recount).

***

We move to the second URL.

"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."
Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

(The Nation, via Common Dreams)

We appear to have left Miami-Dade County without ever establishing that the three Democrats who made up the canvassing board were not the ones who decided not to proceed with the manual recount. We're now in Leon County, dealing with a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.Well, then again, there's this:

It was there that he personally shut down the review of ballots from Miami-Dade County, a populous and particularly contested county where independent reviews would later reveal that hundreds of ballots that could reasonably have been counted for Gore were instead discarded.
(ibid)

The writer appears to have lost his hold on objectivity, if not reality. It's absurd to suggest that Bolton "personally" shut down that count because the canvassing board appears primarily responsible, and even if the protest is blamed (a protest which appeared to have legitimate grounds--see above) for influencing the board's decision it's hard to see how it could in turn be associated directly with Bolton.

[Note: Contrary to my initial impression, the passage above still refers to the count of Miami-Dade ballots in Leon County. Thus, the writer is suggesting that Bolton was "personally responsible" for causing the vote count to stop even though it was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States--a position no less absurd than the other]

Again, there's nothing here that appears to contradict the claim that the Miami-Dade canvassing board ended its own manual recount.


***

We move to the third URL.

article.php is deprecated
(smirkingchimp.com)

Oops.

Don't panic. I'll see what I can do.

It was [Bolton's] role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time.
(Knight-Ridder Newspapers, via extralove.com)

The lead of the story makes it look like Bolton's just trying to intimidate the poor innocent poll workers. Seems like bringing news of a U.S. Supreme Court stay would give some legitimacy to his intent to stop the recount.

The Knight-Ridder story had a fascinating amount of spin to it. The writer repeatedly sheds the practices of objective writing: ("bursting into"--no attribution, "supposedly spontaneous"--no attribution, "helped persuade"--no attribution) in favor of editorializing.

Summary: Another POAC flop. Miami-Dade Democrats decided to halt their manual recount because they could not complete it by the deadline, and probably because they were embarrassed about trying to conduct an improper recount limited to undervotes while barring the count from public observation.

To help underscore that last point, here's a Youtube video of the protest.

The video is a piece of liberal propaganda, to be sure, but it's valuable because it has audio of the protest: "Let us in." Listen for it, starting around the 2:00 mark (it was counting down when I previewed it).



One might wonder why the news reports have the protesters chanting "Stop the fraud!" while the audio has them chanting "Let us in!"
I guess the reporter chooses which chant is most relevant to his version of the story.

The "I can't believe I missed this the first time" file (Sept. 15, 2010 Update)

The Truthout/Truthdig account of the Brooks Brothers riot says that the group was "dressed as protesters."

Like there's some required uniform or appearance code for protesting?

The name "Brooks Brothers riot" came from the description of one of the GOP participants in defense of the group's actions.  The media portrayed them as a mob.  The "Brooks Brothers" comment emphasized that it was a nicely dressed group (formal attire expected of all protesters!)--not the sort of attire one would ordinarily expect of a mob unless it was during Prohibition and they carried submachine guns.

"(D)ressed as protesters."  I'm still laughing.

POAC XVI: Valerie Plame

Sixteenth in a continuing series on the "Project for the Old American Century" Counterspin page.

The talking point this time:

Valerie Plame was not deep undercover

Though it's hard to understand why Patrick Fitzgerald would be permitted to pursue the investigation if Valerie Plame were not a covert agent, it took a surprisingly long time for any official statement on the matter. This "counterspin" entry apparently predates the official statement.

The POAC spin:
CIA SAYS WILSON WAS UNDERCOVER: “But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]
MSNBC confirms that Plame was working on Iran nuke counter-proliferation when she was outed.

Two URLs, and we'll take them one at a time, as usual.

The first is from a New York Times story by Elizabeth Bumiller. If you haven't subscribed to the Times (or are not willing to do what it takes to access the story) then you're not going to find any backup for the POAC claim here. It may appear on the POAC site eventually, since they seem to have little regard for copyright other than establishing a rule that copyrighted material may not be posted in the message board area (a rule that is commonly broken as regulars there post entire articles from copyrighted sources).

I think this is the most relevant passage:

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ''nonofficial cover,'' and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs.
(New York Times, Oct 5, 2003)

The claim is that Plame was a "noc," but the claim is not sourced to a named individual.
Apparently Bumiller did talk to sources within the CIA, but for some reason they would not identify themselves. If you're sufficiently liberal, go ahead and imagine that they feared recriminations from the White House for flatly stating that Plame was undercover. Or maybe it was still a secret even after the Wilsons were talking about it.

Here's the type of sourcing we get from Bumiller on this one:

As required by law, the agency notified the Justice Department in late July that there had been a release of classified information; it is a felony for any official with access to such information to disclose the identity of a covert American officer. It is unclear when Mr. Tenet became aware of the referral, but when he did, he supported it, the C.I.A. official said, even though it was clearly going to cause problems for the White House. ''I don't think he lost any sleep over it,'' the official said.

Why didn't the CIA make any official announcement? If it's a secret, then shouldn't those who gave the information without identifying themselves also, by law, have their actions reported to the Justice Department?
Not to digress, but if it's required by law for the Justice Department to be notified when there is a release of classified information, then why did the Justice Department fail to follow up two well-known leaks of classified information to the New York Times (the asset-tracking story, and the NSA program story)?

The first citation is not a firm rebuttal of the notion that Plame did not maintain covert status. If the report to the Justice Department was made according to a legal requirement and the report itself was public knowledge, then nothing should stop the CIA from making a statement on the matter. Statements were made by sources speaking not-for-attribution. That is fishy, on its face.

***

Second URL.

The second link is broken as of this writing.

My research indicates that POAC probably referred to this taped report by David Shuster, which aired on "Hardball With Chris Mathews" on May 1, 2006.

In any case, as prosecutor Fitzgerald considers whether to charge Karl Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice or worse, MSNBC has learned new information about the damage caused by the White House leaks. Intelligence sources says Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson’s cover was blown, the administration’s ability to track Iran’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.
(MSNBC)

Again, note that even in 2006 when the case has progressed substantially there is no official word of Plame's covert status ("Intelligence sources").

Yes, unidentified sources provide some evidence that Plame was covert, but they hardly settle the matter unequivocally. The best evidence for Plame's covert status did not come out until around the Libby trial sentencing phase.

A newly disclosed court filing from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson was indeed a covert agent who had traveled overseas undercover when her identity was revealed by columnist Bob Novak.
(The Raw Story)

Raw Story thought the fact that this "newly disclosed filing" confirming Plame's covert status was newsworthy (it went in the lead). Now, why would they think that if it had been confirmed earlier? Answer: It hadn't been confirmed sufficiently for responsible reporters to make the claim.

As for writers and pundits who claimed that Plame wasn't undercover--there was some evidence to cast doubt on her status, but not enough to claim that she was not undercover.

Evidently she was covert in the eyes of the CIA, and they did a poor job of keeping her that way aside from the actions of Armitage, Libby, and Rove.

POAC again did an inept job of substantiating its claim, but that's understandable considering how little there was to go on until recently. The POAC zeal exceeded journalistic good sense, but at this point we at least have some official claim to Plame's covert status.

T. J. Templeton claims credit for the "Counterspin" entries, so I'll start giving credit where it's due.