Whoops. Nice slip there. So your advice is to make something up? Sort of like that whitewater hysteria over nothing of substance? Nah. We'll stick with the non-partisan (or fairly right-wing even) CIA to tell us there's a problem here.
Damn, do I trust the National Review Online, a "support Bush no matter what" paper with an obvious conservative agenda, or the CIA? This is a tough one, my brain is hurting.
Mr. Novak has a consistency problem. It's revealing that today is the first time he has substantially changed his story. _________________ July 22nd article in Newsday ... Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
I found this exchange interesting... Grand Rapids, Mich.: Since our current President is the son of a former CIA Director, isn't it curious that he has not ordered an internal investigation of this matter since it broke over two months ago? Of note, I found Condi Rice's Sgt. Schultz (of Hogan's Heroes) imitation, "I know nothing, I see nothing", on the Sunday talk shows yesterday particularly troubling. Walter Pincus: There is a certain irony to the president's position, another being that his father had highly praised WIlson for his action's before and during the Gulf War. _______________________ Brunswick, Maine: Mr. Pincus, In your opinion, why has it taken two months for this story to get the traction it developed over the weekend? Walter Pincus: It is a difficult story to take further than a column was sourced to "two senior administration officials" without have some official steps taken unless some inside source stepped forward. And this weekend, one did. _______________________ © 2003 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
Slammers, Traders and Sundry Wing Nuts...Your willingness to take up the twisted logic of the GOP big Wurlitzer is amusing indeed! From the ever astute and persistent Josh Marshall - <b>Regarding Cliff May's Laughable attempt at playing defence for the White House -</b> Some interesting whistling past the graveyard on Wilsongate by Cliff May in NRO. May says of Wilson's investigation in Niger ... Equally, important and also overlooked: Mr. Wilson had no apparent background or skill as an investigator. As Mr. Wilson himself acknowledged, his so-called investigation was nothing more than "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" at the U.S. embassy in Niger. Based on those conversations, he concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any [sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq] had ever taken place." Compare this to the fairly extensive description of his visit to Niger (I think the most extensive published) that Wilson gave when TPM interviewed him two weeks back (that discussion comes about half-way through the interview.) So May's point is that the attempts to discredit Wilson -- what got the White House into this mess -- didn't go far enough. May also argues that the whole disclosure isn't such a big deal since it was somehow widely known that Valerie Plame was CIA. To this I would only say, Cliff, pursuing this line of inquiry/argument could lead to some really awkward surprises. Just heads up. Another point. May hits again on the theme that Wilson is some sort of Bush-Bashing fanatic who can't be trusted. To this I would only ask, if Wilson is such a left-wing freak, why does the president's father think so highly of him? (Indeed, Bush 41 appointed Wilson ambassador to Niger) One more point. One of May's points is that part of the problem was that the CIA sent out someone to Niger who wasn't sufficiently loyal to the president. This gets said a lot privately among hawks who are close to the White House. The argument -- which I've had repeatedly told to me -- is that the real mistake in this whole mess was sending someone out to Niger who wasn't politically and ideologically loyal to the president. Wasn't one of our guys, etc. That attitude, of course, tells you a lot about how these fellows got into this mess in the first place. <b>Regarding the Novak back tracking on Plame's CIA status</b> Bob Novak is is now saying that his source says that Valerie Plame was an "analyst" and not an "operative" at the CIA. Joe Wilson remembers their conversation in July a bit differently. According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative." Would Wilson confirm it? Wilson declined to discuss the matter, as Novak's original article made clear. When Novak's article appeared, it sourced the story to "two senior administration officials." Wilson says he called Novak back and asked why the article said 'two senior administration officials', whereas during their phone call he had sourced it to someone at the CIA According to Wilson, Novak said "I misspoke the first time." One thing this means is that, according to Wilson, Novak knew Plame was an "operative" rather than an "analyst" at the time he placed his first call to Wilson. Another big problem with Novak's comments on Crossfire today. Today he said ... Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. But then there's this passage in a July 22nd article in Newsday ... Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. <b>"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."</b> I'd say the story's changed.
See my sig, biotch. I'm not as big of a Rice football fan. Baseball's my game. And since when is beating Rice in football something to brag about?
"Wilsongate". Jesus, you guys are pathetic. You just won't be happy until you get your scandal, no matter how fabricated it is... I am not going to comment on this too much, because it is irresponsible to sit here and feed the rumor fires with garbage like I'm seeing in this thread. So far, you have no proof of anything, only a he said-she said affair, which is not a whole lot of evidence. I will just make a prediction: nothing will come of this. Some sort of investigation will take place (and I think it should), and it will find that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the White House. That is just my prediction, and you can take it to the bank. You guys can call me on this prediction when the smoke clears. Until then, have fun speculating.
Rice..... You guys got punk'd by HAWAII??? That perennial football powerhouse from the Pacific? Bahahahahaha!!!
Right on target, Treeman. Where have you been lately? Don't you see their desperation for anything to tar Bush with? It is becoming damned funny.
You know, if I were a Republican, I'd think a lot more coldly about this. No matter how many diversionary tactics are floated, like the status of Plame or how the info reached Novak, the fact remains that an administration official has accused two people in the White House of a crime. It's not going away. Because it's not going away, all the diversionary stuff is actually hurting Bush because it keeps raising more questions and has the potential to drag this out. If I were running the White House (and the World can be grateful that I'm not), I would offer up Rice, Rove or whoever on a silver platter and get this behind me by Veteran's Day. That leaves Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's and a cold winter for this to fade and Bush to recover. If the goal of Republicans is to drag this out, things could break at the beginnng or in the middle of the election cycle with too little time for Bush to recover. On the other hand, if the people they could offer up are threatening to turn and reveal more skeletons, then you're stuck in the non-denial denial/spin like crazy stage from now until next November. Other observations: Anyone notice how our brave CINC ducked out the side door today after a signing ceremony to avoid uncivil questions? Caught a rerun of this morning's CSPAN interview with Wilson. The guy is polished and knows his stuff. The idea that he's going to be smeared as some kind of left-wing wacko is problematic at best. Flipping around, I didn't see this story at all on H&C or O'Reilly. Could have missed it, but they certainly didn't devote much time to it if they had it on at all. In the past year, a lot of folks on the left have floated the idea of impeachment, usually comparing Bush's actions to a much more benign Clinton failure. I now think the time for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney has come based on the fact that we have a President and an Administration too damn stupid to realize you don't piss off the CIA, keep pissing them off, and never go back and make amends!
Exactly. Faux has been conspicously quiet on this matter the whole day. While the other cable news channels were running with "Wilsongate" as the 1st or 2nd story at noon, Faux thought that they would be original and ignore the matter all together and run a feature on Kobe Bryant as their second lead story. I guess they are bending over backwards to be "fair and balanced". Check out the current feature article in Salon.com. <b>"War is peace! How the Bush administration's propaganda machine -- with the help of Roger Ailes' Fox News -- distorts the truth in the Middle East and at home"</b>
Tomorrow's Wahington Post tonight. ________ washingtonpost.com Bush Vows Action if Aides Had Role in Leak Democrats' Demand for Special Counsel Rejected By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, September 30, 2003; Page A01 President Bush's chief spokesman said yesterday that the allegation that administration officials leaked the name of a CIA operative is "a very serious matter" and vowed that Bush would fire anybody responsible for such actions. The vow came as numerous Democratic leaders demanded the administration appoint a special counsel to investigate the charges that a CIA operative's name was divulged in an effort to discredit her husband, a prominent critic of Bush's Iraq policy. The White House rejected those calls, also saying it has no evidence of wrongdoing by Bush adviser Karl Rove or others and therefore no reason to begin an internal investigation. "There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office, as well," said Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary. He said that "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Justice Department officials said yesterday they have begun a preliminary probe into whether an administration official violated the law by telling journalists that the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent critic of Bush's use of intelligence related to Iraq, worked for the CIA. Wilson has drawn attention for his report on a trip he took to Niger for the CIA that, he said, did not confirm an administration charge that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear materiel in that country. A senior official quoted Bush as saying, "I want to get to the bottom of this," during a meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove. Senior intelligence officials said yesterday that the CIA filed what they termed a "crime report" with the Justice Department in late July, shortly after syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, citing two unnamed administration sources, identified Wilson's wife by name. The CIA report pointed to a "possible violation of federal criminal law involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." Three weeks ago, intelligence officials said, the CIA returned to the Justice Department a standard 11-question form detailing the potential damage done by the release of the information. Officials said it may have been the first such report ever filed on the unauthorized disclosure of an operative's name. Word of the Justice probe emerged over the weekend after the CIA briefed lawmakers on it last week. Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers. The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story." In addition to Novak's column, an administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to discredit Wilson. An article that appeared on the Time magazine Web site the same week Novak's column was published said that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." The same article quoted from an interview with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, saying that Cheney did not know about Wilson's mission "until this year when it became public in the last month or so." Neither the Novak nor the Time account mentioned that Plame had worked as an undercover operative, which indicates those who leaked the information may not have known she was. Novak, co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," said on the program yesterday that he was not called with the leak but got the information during interviews. The CIA "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," he said. "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives." Sources said Wilson's wife is a clandestine operations officer for the CIA, now out of the field and working on weapons of mass destruction. At a forum held last month by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Wilson said: "I don't think we're going to let this drop. At the end of the day it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me when I use that name. I measure my words." Wilson said yesterday that he believes Rove "at a minimum condoned the leak," but said he has no evidence Rove was the original leaker. Wilson said that based on reporters' statements, he believes Rove participated in calls that drew attention to his wife's occupation after Novak's column was published. "My knowledge is based on a reporter who called me right after he had spoken to Rove and said that Rove had said my wife was fair game," Wilson said. He said that conversation occurred on July 21. Wilson said a producer from another network told him about the same time, "The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall that we won't use them." Wilson said the series of similar calls he received, which included four journalists from three networks, stopped on July 22, after he appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established." NBC anchor Tom Brokaw reported last night that correspondent Andrea Mitchell had such a discussion after the Novak column appeared. McClellan said Rove "wasn't involved" in any disclosure of the operative's name. "The president knows he wasn't involved. . . . It's simply not true." Justice Department officials said yesterday they have opened a preliminary inquiry to determine whether to investigate a possible violation of the law protecting the identities of undercover intelligence operatives. If the department's career counter-espionage lawyers find grounds for a full investigation, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft will have to decide whether to name a special counsel to oversee the case. Among the considerations that could lead to such action is the inherent conflict of interest in having the Bush Justice Department investigate employees of the Bush White House, department officials said. A 1982 law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for someone with authorized access to classified information identifying intelligence officers, agents, informants and sources to intentionally disclose that information to anyone who does not have the proper security clearances. Some congressional Democrats insisted on the need for a special counsel yesterday. In a letter to Ashcroft, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) requested a special counsel "because of the obvious and inherent conflicts of interests involved." Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs Committee, said he will introduce legislation to revive the independent counsel statute, which expired. Lieberman said White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. should direct all White House personnel to keep all records that could be related to the Justice inquiry. Asked if he thought an outside counsel should be appointed to investigate the leak, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he believed that Ashcroft would appoint "career professionals in the Justice Department to examine the situation" and that it would be a "thorough investigation."
Rarely Invoked Statute Could Play a Role Few, if Any, Have Been Prosecuted Under 1982 Law to Shield Agents' Identities By Edward Walsh and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, September 30, 2003; Page A06 An obscure law that could come into play in an investigation of alleged leaks by the Bush administration has rarely, if ever, been used to prosecute someone for the unauthorized disclosure of a covert U.S. agent's name, people familiar with the law said yesterday. The law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, was enacted in 1982 and was designed to protect the identities of covert U.S. agents. It was a response to an organized campaign led by former CIA agent Philip Agee to identify CIA and other U.S. covert agents around the world. After it was signed into law, the measure quickly faded into obscurity. Government officials said yesterday they could not recall a single prosecution under the law, although they said they could not completely rule that out. But now that long-forgotten statute has been resurrected in connection with allegations that Bush administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak in an attempt to discredit the officer's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger last year to investigate President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore, which can be used in producing nuclear weapons, from African nations. Earlier this year, Wilson disclosed that he found no evidence to support the yellowcake claim, undercutting one of Bush's justifications for the war in Iraq. Agee, the renegade CIA agent, was the main catalyst for the law that could play a role in the investigation into the leak that identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction. In 1975, Agee published a book, "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," that revealed undercover CIA operations and named those involved in them. Agee was also associated with the Covert Action Information Bulletin, which included a column called "Naming Names" that regularly identified undercover CIA agents. "There was a reaction in this country" to such disclosures, recalled Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel. "Regardless of what you thought of the CIA, very few people except Phil Agee thought it was a good idea to name your fellow countrymen so that they could be shot." The law enacted to stop Agee and others imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for the unauthorized disclosure of covert agents' identities by government employees who have access to classified information. The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." The law says no person other than the one accused of leaking the information can be prosecuted, a provision that would protect journalists who report leaked classified information identifying a covert agent. But there is one exception to that protection. The measure says people who engage in a "pattern of activities" intended to identify covert agents and who have "reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States" can be prosecuted. Smith said that language was aimed at the publishers of the Covert Action Information Bulletin and others who made it a practice to identify undercover CIA agents. A former Justice Department official with experience investigating national security cases said the 1982 law was seldom considered by prosecutors and that there were few, if any, prosecutions under the law because the statute's enactment had the desired effect. "The fact that it's on the books has a very sobering effect on people who have access to sensitive information," he said. "Usually its existence is enough of a deterrent, and that has been the case with this law." In general, investigations into leaks to news organizations rarely lead to charges. In recent years, the few convictions included a former Navy analyst who disclosed classified defense photographs and a Drug Enforcement Administration analyst who disclosed material about a classified investigation. "There is a long history of failure there," said Stewart Baker, a former general counsel at the National Security Agency. Usually, he said, "all the roads end up leading back to the journalists, and there is an assumption that the journalists are not going to talk." The CIA makes about one referral a week to the Justice Department concerning possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information, according to officials. The CIA referred the disclosure by Novak to the Justice Department in July. In mid-September, the agency sent follow-up material that answered a series of questions such as whether the officer's identity was already in the public domain, according to a U.S. intelligence official. Any investigation, whether conducted by a special counsel or national security lawyers at the Justice Department, would involve FBI agents from the bureau's Washington field office. As a first step, White House officials might receive questionnaires about whether they were in touch with various journalists and whether they knew of Wilson's wife's occupation, according to several attorneys who have been involved in investigations of leaks and probes of the White House. Investigators would also likely subpoena phone logs, calendars and credit card receipts.
I don't know if this has been posted but the Justice Department has launched a preliminary investigation. http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?vts=093020030630 WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — A preliminary Justice Department investigation to establish who leaked the name of a CIA agent has become a full-fledged inquiry, the White House said Tuesday. The White House has denied that senior political adviser Karl Rove or any other top figure was involved and promised to cooperate with any inquiry. Should an independent counsel investigate allegations of White House involvement in leaking the name of a CIA agent? Yes, the Justice Department can't be trusted to be impartial. No, the Justice Department can do an honest job. Can't decide Vote to see results Should an independent counsel investigate allegations of White House involvement in leaking the name of a CIA agent? * 3515 responses Yes, the Justice Department can't be trusted to be impartial. 74% No, the Justice Department can do an honest job. 23% Can't decide 3% Survey results tallied every 60 seconds. Live Votes reflect respondents' views and are not scientifically valid surveys. THE WHITE HOUSE general counsel’s office told senior staff that the Justice Department contacted the White House Monday night to disclose the formal investigation, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Tuesday. The counsel’s office notified senior staff to save all possible information related to possible leaks, he added. “The president has directed the White House to cooperate fully with this investigation,” McClellan said. “The president wants to get to the bottom of this.” INDEPENDENT COUNSEL? Democrats want Attorney General John Ashcroft to go further and appoint an independent counsel to investigate. “There are many serious allegations that this is at the highest level of the White House,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday. At the very least, he added, there’s “an appearance of conflict” that the Justice Department won’t be impartial in its inquiry. Asked if Democratic demands weren’t just politics in an election year, Schumer said the seriousness of the allegations required an independent track. “It’s the right thing to do,” he insisted. The rules for appointment of a special counsel give Ashcroft wide latitude to either appoint one outright, conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if such a counsel is needed or to conclude that it would be better for the Justice Department to handle the probe itself. McClellan said Tuesday that any decision related to a special counsel rests with the Justice Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Demand by Democrats Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., explains why he thinks an independent counsel is needed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIED TO IRAQ URANIUM CLAIM At the center of the controversy is whether White House officials leaked the name of the CIA agent in retaliation for public criticism by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, of President Bush’s claim that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium in Africa as part of its nuclear weapons program. NBC News and MSNBC.com reported last Friday that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to look into the matter. Advertisement The leak of the woman’s name is an apparent violation of two laws that bar revealing the identities of covert operatives: the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act. But intelligence officials also fear that the leak could enable foreign intelligence officials to track down the woman’s contacts and expose other agents and sources. Appearing Monday on MSNBC’s “Buchanan and Press,” Wilson said that at the very least, identifying his wife “essentially takes a national security asset involved in the search for weapons of mass destruction off the table.” Curry: Democrats stand to gain WHITE HOUSE: ROVE ‘WASN’T INVOLVED’ The White House has denied any involvement in leaking the identity of a CIA operative. Democrats are calling for a special counsel on the issue. NBC’s Norah O’Donnell reports. Wilson, who served as acting ambassador to Iraq before the Gulf War in 1991, pointed the finger of suspicion at Rove, saying, “I believe that Karl Rove at a minimum condoned the leak and the continued leaking of it.” Wilson said he believed leaking his wife’s name was “designed either to smear me or discredit me, or it was designed to discourage me or others from coming forward.” He said he was “struck by how little [the leak] added to the story,” describing it as “gratuitously inserted.” The president refused to answer questions about the controversy. But White House press secretary Scott McClellan said he had spoken to Rove and was reassured that the allegation was “simply not true.” “He wasn’t involved,” McClellan said. “The president knows he wasn’t involved.” Asked whether Bush should fire any official found to have leaked the information, McClellan said: “They should be pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct.” McClellan said White House officials would turn over telephone logs if the Justice Department asked them to do so. But he said Bush had no plans to ask staff members whether they were involved. Slate: Washington's identity crisis JUSTICE ASKS CIA QUESTIONS CIA lawyers sent the Justice Department an informal notice of the alleged leak in July, two senior officials told NBC News on Monday. Although that letter, which was not signed by CIA Director George Tenet, was not a formal request for an investigation, the Justice Department could have opened one at that point, lawyers said. It remained unclear whether it did so. CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the woman’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said. The CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said. Following the report Friday night by NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, an unidentified senior administration official told The Associated Press that the Justice Department and the FBI were trying to determine whether there was a violation of the law and, if so, whether a full criminal investigation was warranted. Schumer was not the only Democrat calling for an independent investigation. “Such disclosures are a matter of utmost seriousness that could threaten the security of every American,” senior party figures, including Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Joseph Biden of Delaware, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a letter to Bush. Most of the party’s presidential contenders echoed the call. Rarely invoked law could play role WILSON CRITICIZED ADMINISTRATION The controversy sprouted roots in January, when the president said in his State of the Union address that British intelligence officials had learned that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa. Bush used the citation to back up the administration’s claim that then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat. A senior administration official cited in a Washington Post report Sunday said two top White House officials also called at least a half-dozen journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. The administration has since had to repudiate the claim. Tenet said the 16-word sentence should not have been included in the speech and publicly accepted responsibility. Questions were raised about the claim soon after the speech, but the issue came to a head in July, when Wilson, who investigated the British intelligence that Iraq had tried to buy the enriched uranium in Niger, said in an opinion piece in The New York Times that he had told the CIA long before Bush’s speech that the information was highly suspect. “We spend billions of dollars on intelligence,” Wilson wrote. “But we end up putting something in the State of the Union address, something we got from another intelligence agency, something we cannot independently verify, in an area of Africa where the British have no on-the-ground presence.” A week after Wilson went public with his criticism, Robert Novak, a syndicated Chicago Sun-Times columnist, quoted two anonymous senior administration officials as saying Wilson’s wife, a CIA analyst working on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, had suggested to her superiors that her husband, a retired diplomat, conduct the investigation of the British intelligence. Sept. 28 — National security adviser Condoleezza Rice says she knows nothing of alleged calls by White House officials identifying the CIA agent. Novak noted that the CIA denied the accusation, saying that agency officials had picked Wilson and then asked his wife to contact him. He added Monday during “Crossfire,” the program he co-hosts on CNN, that the officials did not call him to leak the woman’s name. He said the disclosure came when he was interviewing one of the officials about Wilson’s mission to Niger and the official told him that Wilson’s wife had a hand in arranging the mission and that she was a CIA employee. Novak said that when he called to confirm the information, a CIA official asked him not to use the name. That official, however, did not say there would be any danger to the woman or her sources if her name were disclosed, Novak said. A senior administration official cited in a Washington Post report Sunday said two top White House officials also called at least a half-dozen journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. NBC News said Monday that reports that Mitchell was one of those reporters were not completely accurate. Mitchell was contacted in connection with the story, it said, but only after Novak revealed the woman’s name in his column in July. NBC News has decided not to report the woman’s name. MSNBC.com has removed her name from its coverage.
Rimrocker shoots and scores again, this time its number 1! Yeap, there's no proof of this. Funny how somebody can go on and on about overwhelming proof of AL Qaeda connections and banned weapons, and blah blah blah based off crap that he reads in "The Guardian" and the "Sunday Telegraph" and then they come into this thread, and play the "no proof" card. F-cking hilarious. Yeah, I guess there's no proof, only the fact that Novak's column happened and the CIA demanded an investigation afterwards and the DOJ is investigating. YOu know, there probably isn't such a guy as Robert Novak, he's probably a fabrication. Yeh, that's nothing at all. Oh, wait, this just in, I have information that the White house official who leaked this is hiding out in Syria! He's buried somewhere and we can't find him. But I know its true cuz Czech intelligence told me it was true and they have pictures and stuff that I never saw and they are standing by their story even though they're not!!! It's only a matter of time! You're a shill. Accept it. Just start thinking of scandals to spin when President Clark is inaugurated, after he starts raising taxes to give to illegal immigrant welfare queen drug addicts!
Good post PG. Anyone still holding to the line that national security was not compromised by this leak?
Pre-emptive strike... Joseph Wilson's biography at the Middle East Institute names Wilson's wife as "the former Valerie Plame." The copyright on the page says 2002; Novak's column was written in 2003. But note, the biography doesn't say "the former Valerie Plame, now current or past CIA operative." The fact that they were married was not a secret. The secret revolves around her work for the CIA.
tree, come on. You are really demeaning all of the articles and information in this thread as "he said/ she said?" I guess one of the hes or shes must be the entire CIA. Your going to lose a little cred (with me at least, not that you care) if you can't admit this is troubling. I for one am not gleeful. I'm disturbed. I don't see how you can give a "stone cold lock" to your prediction... unless you know something we don't know.
