posted on September 26, 2003 08:59:34 PM new
You can screw your little people over and what can they do about it? You can even invite your enemies to bring it on for the grunts in the front line.
But it would be well to remember the last President that screwed the CIA was Kennedy.
It did not go well for him........
Most recently, on September 14, 2003, after almost a year of repeating the claim, you finally admitted the inaccuracy of your previous assertions on Iraq's nuclear capabilities when you appeared on Meet the Press. The chronology shows that you knew or should have known that the claim was false when you first made it on Meet the Press in March 2003. We would like to inquire as to why your admission took so long to be made publicly. We would also like answers to our previous questions about your role in the dissemination of the nuclear uranium claim.
According to The Washington Post, June 5, 2003, you made "multiple" "unusual" visits to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs."
These visits were unprecedented. Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA analysts. According to the Post, your unprecedented visits created "an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives."
"Formally, as Josh Marshall notes [*], Ashcroft has to make a decision whether to refer the matter to the FBI for investigation. But if he tries to refuse, he will face a firestorm, internally as well as externally. Six months or a year ago, with Bush riding high, Ashcroft might have been able to get away with it. But not now."
"Once Ashcroft asks for an investigation, it gets carried out by career people in the FBI, people with reputations to protect. Someone will ask Rove the straight-up question whether he ever talked to Novak or anyone else about Plame, and whether he knows of anyone else having done so. When Rove answers those questions, he will know that lying to the Bureau is itself a federal crime. He will also know that the press shield laws may not apply in this case, and that reporters who refused the bait may not feel as bound to protect their sources as Novak does."
"Wilson's stated ambition to "see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs" no longer seems out of reach."
Agent's Identity Disclosed to Journalists
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A01
At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that an administration official leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, administration officials said yesterday.
The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity can violate federal law.
A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
posted on September 28, 2003 06:24:35 AM new
The Post got one "senior administration official" to concede that "two top White House officials" disclosed Plame's identity to at least six journalists. (In its totality, the piece gives me a pretty good hunch who the 'senior administration official' is.)
In any case, this is truly a bombshell and for the first time I suspect someone may actually lose their job over this -- though loyalty being what it is to the prez I still have my doubts. Here's what this means, as nearly as I can see it. Clearly, the White House knows who those two people are. They also know that the wrongdoing did in fact occur. Perhaps most important, the public now knows that they know. Given all that, I don't see how -- in a climate of media feeding frenzy -- it will be possible to keep their identities a secret for long. And once their identities are known ...
posted on September 29, 2003 06:32:07 AM new About Rove etc.
"Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted."
posted on September 29, 2003 08:26:38 AM new
Where are the outraged comments of the right wing zealots. Where are the cries of treason, where are the screams of compromising our front line fighters? So few have anything to say!
Republican, the other white meat!
An administration that promised to restore honesty and integrity to the White House will go down in history as the most seriously corrupt and dishonest.
Robert Novak will be on Cross fire today to answer questions, CNN at 1:30 PST
posted on September 29, 2003 10:48:05 AM new
My guess is Novak (on the right) will answer nothing. But I watch Crossfire everyday.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on September 29, 2003 02:13:01 PM new
This is a very serious charge and any effort by the Bush administration to trivialize it is unconscionable. Wilson's wife was in fact an operative and not an analyst as Novak tried to infer.
Somebody more credible and independent than John Ashcroft is needed to investigate.
Novak was wrong when he tried to trivialize her job description. It couldn't be more serious.
She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.
posted on September 29, 2003 04:22:22 PM new
taken from the WSJ
The Plame Facts
"At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist," yesterday's Washington Post reported. "The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy 'yellowcake' uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons."
We've been keeping an eye on this story since July, when it first surfaced in the left-wing press. But we haven't commented on it, because we haven't been sure what to make of it. We're still not sure what to make of it, since we've heard only part of one side of the story; the administration has not made any substantive comments, and what we've heard from its accusers has been far from complete. But now that the story is getting attention outside the fever swamps, we thought we'd review what is and isn't known so far.
At issue is the following passage in syndicated columnist Robert Novak's July 14 column:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
Two days later, The Nation's David Corn published a column that laid out the allegation at the heart of the Post story:
The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. . . .
This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.
A couple of caveats are in order here. First, it remains unconfirmed that Plame was in fact working covertly for the CIA. Novak described her as a CIA "operative," but not an undercover operative. Wilson and the CIA both imply that she was an undercover operative, but they employ various circumlocutions to avoid actually saying so.
Thus Corn:
Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.
The Post, likewise, says "the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."
In addition, no one in a position to know has publicly fingered the alleged leakers. Wilson himself has said he would like "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," and various anti-Bush conspiracy theorists have latched on to the Rove theory. But this seems to be pure speculation, and possibly wishful thinking. Bush-haters, after all, would love to be rid of Rove, a great political asset to the White House.
The Post's main source narrows the field somewhat:
A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. . . . The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.
One question that arises is how the Post's source knew that the alleged leakers were "top White House offiicials"--a category that is more specific than Novak's description of "senior administration officials." It's possible is that the Post's source is someone at the CIA who had knowledge of journalists' inquires to the agency about the leaks. Perhaps one or more of the journalists used the more specific description. But the Post account suggests that the source has even more specific knowledge. "The official would not name the leakers for the record," the paper says, implying that he did name them off the record. How would he know? Did one of the reporters betray his sources?
Then there's this, also from the Post account:
When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. . . .
Novak said in an interview [Saturday] night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."
If the revelation of Plame's name was such a serious breach of national security, why didn't the CIA make a stronger pitch to Novak to withhold it?
Indeed, as blogger Donald Luskin asks, why did the CIA answer Novak's questions at all? Instead of saying "Valerie who? We've never heard of anyone named Valerie" or simply that "We don't answer media inquiries about CIA personnel"--the CIA itself confirmed [her identity], and in so doing the CIA itself leaked it.
Then there's the question of motive. Why would Novak's administration sources blow Plame's cover, assuming indeed that they did so? Wilson told Corn the revelation "is intended to intimidate others who might come forward." But this doesn't make sense.
An ordinary reader of Novak's column had no way of grasping the purported significance of the revelation. Novak didn't make explicit that he was blowing Plame's cover; what he reported seemed to be more an accusation of nepotism. (Not a very convincing accusation, we might add, since Wilson was not paid for his sojourn to Niger, which is not exactly one of the world's leading vacation spots.) In order for the revelation to have the kind of deterrent value Wilson claims, it would have to be clear to an outsider that Novak had reported something truly damaging--and that couldn't happen without the leakers themselves being incriminated. And in any case, how many administration critics are married to CIA covert operatives?
The Post's source's theory is that "it was meant purely and simply for revenge" against Wilson. Human nature being what it is, one can't rule out such ignoble motives. But as a political matter, taking such action would have been, as the Post's source puts it, "a huge miscalculation." What could have been in it for the administration, or for the leakers? Why risk creating the Bush White House's first-ever scandal over the yellowcake kerfuffle, an issue that no one cared about outside the Beltway and the Bush-hating left? It doesn't sound like something Karl Rove would do.
posted on September 29, 2003 04:39:10 PM new
Linda,
Your c&p is not up to date.
She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.
posted on September 29, 2003 04:58:13 PM newThe Post's source's theory is that "it was meant purely and simply for revenge" against Wilson. Human nature being what it is, one can't rule out such ignoble motives. But as a political matter, taking such action would have been, as the Post's source puts it, "a huge miscalculation." What could have been in it for the administration, or for the leakers? Why risk creating the Bush White House's first-ever scandal over the yellowcake kerfuffle, an issue that no one cared about outside the Beltway and the Bush-hating left? It doesn't sound like something Karl Rove would do.
Oh, yes, it does sound like something Carl Rove would do. For example...
"Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted."
The author of your c&p is wrong when he suggests that Americans don't care about the lies concerning weapons of mass destruction.
posted on September 29, 2003 06:25:50 PM new
They're calling for an investigation on both sides of the aisle...with the Dems asking for an independent counsel...what lousy timing
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on September 30, 2003 06:05:52 AM new
You can't blame Novak for not revealing sources. At this point, Novak, who is defending himself, is irrelevant. Otherwise, the situation remains serious as the White House has indicated. In addition to Novak, six other reporters were contacted with the intelligence leak and one of these reporters may reveal the source either publicly or to the CIA. Otherwise, this very serious crime will fade away, like all the others.
The White House refuses an internal or an independent investigation. Yet, they consider the situation serious. They will cooperate only with Ashcroft. LOL!
Independent counsel law needs to be revived for this crooked administration.
posted on September 30, 2003 07:44:28 AM new
from the AP 9-30-03 @ 9:34AM EDT
Wilson back tracked Monday saying he had not meant to imply that Rove "was the source or the authorizer, just that I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl Rove was the personification of the White House political operation."
And the article also says:
Justice gets about 50 such complaints from the CIA each year about leaks of classified information and few ever get beyond a preliminary investigation.
The White House said that leaking classified information was a serious matter that should be "pursued to the fullest extent" by the Justice Department. But White House officials denied it leaked the CIA officer's identity.
posted on September 30, 2003 08:48:28 AM new Linda,
You need to read a current article. Based on Novak's report and other reporters who were contacted, it's well established that the leak originated from the White House. Since Carl Rove runs the White House it's not unusual that Wilson referred to the White House as "Carl Rove". Surely, you aren't trying to blame or denigrate Wilson for the leak which possibly put his wife's life and job in jeopardy.
Your second c&p quote, made in a pathetic effort to trivialize this very serious crime is nonsensical. This leak is especially significant because it comes from an administration so secretive and ordinarily in control of "leaks". Such a reckless effort to cower and intimidate indicates a degree of corruption in this administration that is scandalous and when national security is compromised it's frightening.
posted on September 30, 2003 10:23:10 AM new
The hypocrisy of the the left is incredible. Where was the outrage when the Democrat SOB's in Congress kept leaking our war plans in Afghanistan and Iraq to the press and endangered our troops? They leaked so much classified information that Bush would inform only the top leaders of Congress.
posted on September 30, 2003 11:14:10 AM new
Plans? What plans? LOL!
Hypocrisy is the approval of publicly eviscerating Clinton for frivolous sex while refusing to conduct an internal or independent investigation of a felony which could lead to a breach in National Security and danger to CIA operatives. That's Hypocrisy!
posted on September 30, 2003 11:44:09 AM new
You are so right, ebayauctionguy. It's shows so clearly to everyone doesn't it?
And they continue to wonder why few even bother to respond to their posts anymore? lol
-----------
posted on September 30, 2003 01:51:44 PM new
Not only is Karl Rove the personification of the White House political operation but Wilson also said in a telephone interview that "I have people who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he (Rove), at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there."
posted on September 30, 2003 04:08:56 PM new
If there were democrats, or anyone else for that matter, who leaked secret war plans to the press, there should be consequences for them. The president's supporters seem always to be willing to point the finger and shout "oh yeah, well what about when the democrats did this or that? and what about Clinton doing thus and so?" What about it? Do those "what abouts" make it OK for the White House to put an American's life in danger, ruin careers and commit felonies just for paybacks? There are republicans calling for investigation here too, it's not an issue of the "left" by itself.
Your comment helen, about the right's willingness to gut Clinton over sex and ignore the current administration's breach of federal law hits the nail quite squarely on the head.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on September 30, 2003 06:39:59 PM new
The second letter sent to all White House employees by the President's counsel mentions names of two reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps. The White House employees are instructed to preserve and maintain all information that relate in any way to contacts either direct or indirect on behalf of these reporters...Novak is included.
posted on September 30, 2003 07:43:16 PM new
The only member of the press I am aware of that revealed troop movements while embedded was Geraldo Rivera (Fox News Network).
The conservative talk shows are spinning like tops this evening, quite amusing if it wasn't an attempt to gain acceptance for treason.
Republican, the other white meat!
It must have been ... libruhlss!! Yes, libruhs, all conspirings and scheme-ings! Tricksy, sneaksy, and false! Libruhls have always hated the precious! They want to destroy the precious! But we won't them, will we, precious! We will wring their necks!
The Poor Man
