CIA Seeks Probe of White House

dang it Clutch!

turn on the edit button!

bigboy here's the post link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data100103.html

 

Leak risks US security, says ex-CIA official
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday October 2, 2003
The Guardian

...

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, said he was trained 14 years ago with Valerie Plame, a specialist on weapons of mass destruction, whose naming by a Washington journalist quoting senior administration officials has triggered a criminal investigation of the White House.

The journalist who published Ms Plame's name, Robert Novak, said he was told she was an analyst and that although he was asked by the CIA not to use her name, he did not think it would endanger anyone.

Mr Johnson, now a business security consultant, vehemently disagreed.

"I was an analyst. She's not," he told the Guardian. "In any case, it is a red herring. Even when I was an analyst my own parents did not know who I worked for. The day we walked into the agency we were under cover and we only knew each other by last initials.

"She's under cover, working in a clandestine situation, and it was exposed for the sake of cheap, tawdry politics. Assessing the damage for this could be difficult and will take some time," Mr Johnson said.

"I'm a registered Republican and I'm sickened by this," he added. "I've spoken with four colleagues who have since left the agency who worked with her. And they are livid."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1053934,00.html

 

Republicans call for independent counsel.

"Given the obvious conflict of interest, however, it should be an independent counsel, and not you, who exercises such discretion."
-- Orrin Hatch

"The preliminary investigation of Gore represents progress, however slight. Appointment of an independent counsel to investigate both the president and the vice president is inevitable. The longer her delay in doing this, the longer it will take to get answers the American people deserve."
-- Henry Hyde

"At some point questions must be answered, if only to build confidence that a rigorous investigation is underway and that Justice isn't merely circling the wagons to defend the White House."
-- Trent Lott

The year? 1997. No such calls are coming from the Republicans in 2003.

 

It's going to be a lot of fun comparing one to the other. There will probably be hypocrisy on both sides, it will just be more pronounced on the right.

 

I don't understand why some posters are trying to declare the issue much ado about nothing, and that it's over.

The truth is that we know the law has been broken. All that remains to do is find out who broke it.

 

And yet...

Newsday story by Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, July 22

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday (July 21) that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

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."

 

Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm


By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03


The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were associated with Brewster-Jennings.

Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House were given a Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers for any records related to Wilson or contacts with journalists about Wilson. The broad order, in an e-mail from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, directed them to retain records "that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency."

White House employees received the e-mailed directive at 12:45 p.m., with an all-capitalized subject line saying, "Important Follow-Up Message From Counsel's Office." By 5 p.m. on Tuesday, employees must turn over copies of relevant electronic records, telephone records, message slips, phone logs, computer records, memos, and diaries and calendar entries.

The directive notes that lawyers in the counsel's office are attorneys for the president in his official capacity and that they cannot provide personal legal advice to employees.

For some officials, the task is a massive one. Some White House officials said they had numerous conversations with Wilson that had nothing to do with his wife, so the directive is seen as a heavy burden at a time when many of the president's aides already feel beleaguered.

Officials at the Pentagon and State Department also have been asked to retain records related to the case. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday: "We are doing our searches. . . . I'm not sure what they will be looking for or what they wish to contact us about, but we are anxious to be of all assistance to the inquiry."

In another development, FBI agents yesterday began attempts to interview journalists who may have had conversations with government sources about Plame and Wilson. It was not clear how many journalists had been contacted. The FBI has interviewed Plame, ABC News reported.

Wilson and his wife have hired Washington lawyer Christopher Wolf to represent them in the matter.

The couple has directed him to take a preliminary look at claims they might be able to make against people they believe have impugned their character, a source said.

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun & Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.

The phone number in the listing is not in service, and the property manager at the address listed said there is no such company at the property, although records from 2000 were not available.

Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000, was "reattributed" so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore. Wilson also gave $1,000 to the Bush primary campaign, but there is no donation listed from his wife.

 

Here's a good site to keep up with this issue.

link

Here's an article from that site for those who feel that to be a true Republican or conservative you have to take the party line that she wasn't an agent or it is no big deal to out her.

**********
CONSERVATIVES WEIGH IN....The Weekly Standard weighed in today on the Valerie Plame affair, which means we now have reaction to this episode from the four main conservative voices in the media. The good news: 50% of them think outing a CIA agent for partisan purposes is a bad thing. The bad news: 50% of them don't.

So: the Washington Times and Weekly Standard each receive kudos, while National Review and the Wall Street Journal each receive special "Partisanship Über Alles" awards for disgracing themselves by pretending that betrayal of national security is OK as long as Republicans are doing it.

And a very special oak leaf cluster to the WSJ for conduct above and beyond the call of duty by arguing not just that outing a CIA agent is OK, but that it's actually part of the "public's right to know." Congratulations, guys!

Washington Times: Traitors Shouldn't Be Tolerated. As former President Bush said in 1999 of those who expose intelligence agents, they are "the most insidious of traitors." We fully agree. While we do not yet know most of the facts, what is beyond doubt is that "two senior administration officials" did the deed....The president should personally make it known to the public that it is his highest priority to get to the bottom of the matter. There may be traitors in his midst — even if the actors may not have appreciated the nature of their conduct.


Weekly Standard: Fire 'em — And Then Apologize.
The president has, as the Washington Times suggested last week, taken "too passive a stance" toward this misdeed by one or more of his employees. Surely he should do his utmost to restore the White House's reputation for honor and integrity by calling together the dozens of more-or-less "senior" administration officials and asking whoever spoke with Novak to come forward and explain themselves. Presumably the relevant officials--absent some remarkable explanation that's hard to conceive--should be fired, and their names given to the Justice Department. The president might also want to call Mrs. Wilson, who is after all a government official serving her country, and apologize for the damage done to her by his subordinate's action.


National Review: Exposing Agents Is No Big Deal.
The flap about the putative outing of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee is not the important story in this affair as far as I am concerned. The only reason this incident has any legs is the eagerness of the press to set themselves on scandal autopilot....So we are left with a leak that wasn't a leak, about a secret agent who was evidently neither secret nor an agent....In my opinion, the only scandal here is the lack of sophistication with which the Niger uranium question was addressed. This was amateur hour. It is no way to run a war.


Wall Street Journal: Exposing CIA Agents Who Oppose the President is a Moral Duty
An avowed opponent of war with Iraq, Mr. Wilson was somehow hired as a consultant by the CIA to investigate a claim made by British intelligence about yellowcake uranium sought in Niger by Iraqi agents. Though we assume he signed the routine CIA confidentiality agreement, Mr. Wilson blew his own cover to denounce the war and attack the Bush Administration for lying. Never mind that the British still stand by their intelligence, and that the CIA's own October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, since partly declassified, lent some credence to the evidence.

This is the context in which Mr. Novak was told that Mr. Wilson had been hired at the recommendation of his wife, a CIA employee. This is hardly blowing a state secret but is something the public had a right to know. When an intelligence operative essentially claims that a U.S. President sent American soldiers off to die for a lie, certainly that operative's own motives and history ought to be on the table. In any event, Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters. It remains far from clear that any law was violated.

 

Thats an unbelievable headline op/ed i'm sure, but a 'moral duty' --

 

I love how they are trying to second guess the CIA and the Justice Dept as to who was an undercover agent and whether or not any laws or broken....Gee, I wonder who would be in a better position to know who's a clandestine agent or not, the CIA or the National Review and the WSJ?

Pathetic denial.

 

Novak's got an attorney. Guess it's a bit more serious than he lets on in his comments.

_____________
Inside Politics CNN

WOODRUFF: All right.

Separately from all that, we know the Justice Department is expanding the investigation. New e-mails sent out to the White House employees today. Have you, Bob Novak been contacted yet?

NOVAK: I'm going to give you an answer I don't think I ever give in my life. On advice of counsel, I am asked not to answer that question.

WOODRUFF: So you cannot say whether you have been contacted by investigators?

NOVAK: On the advice of my counsel.

WOODRUFF: All right. We will leave it there and duly noted.

 

Clark the first to use the word "criminal" and also (smartly, I think) starts to link this to the political manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war.
_______________

Clark Wants Probe of W.House on Iraq Intelligence
Fri Oct 3, 4:34 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!


By Patricia Wilson

ARLINGTON, Va. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark called on Friday for an independent probe of the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the Iraq war, calling it "twisted" and possibly criminal.

The retired four-star Army general and NATO commander who entered the 2004 White House race two weeks ago amid a flood of publicity and instantly rose among the leaders in some polls, said the American public needed to know if it was "intentionally deceived."

In his harshest indictment yet of President Bush, Clark said the administration's "irresponsible" Iraq policy had put Americans in danger and the United States in crisis mode at home and abroad.

Going further than his nine rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, most of whom have called for a special counsel to probe the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name, Clark also demanded an independent commission investigate the "possible manipulation" of intelligence leading to the war in Iraq.

"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a war based on false claims," he told a conference of military reporters and editors. "Its handling of intelligence and its retaliation against its critics may have been criminal."

"INTELLIGENCE GAP"

"We need to know if we face an intelligence gap ... because the system has been twisted to suit the prejudices of the policy makers," Clark said.

Bush defended on Friday his decision to attack Iraq, brushing aside questions about his justifications for war and citing what he said was preliminary evidence from the top CIA weapons hunter that Baghdad had been developing unconventional weapons even though none have so far been found.

Clark, who retired from the military three years ago, said he had seen "no compelling" evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and depicted the war in Iraq as a policy hatched "behind the scenes."

He said he heard the arguments that the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks justified an invasion to oust Saddam, that it provided an opportunity to remake the region and that there was "a list of states they want to take down in the Middle East."

"I had hoped it was just Pentagon hallway scuttlebutt ... but it looks like it was more than that," he said.

Clark accused the Bush administration of having an answer before they knew the question.

"They seized on Sept. 11 as proof of a problem that required the solution of attacking Iraq," he said. "Saddam was involved in Sept. 11, they implied, and Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, so they made Iraq a centerpiece in the war on terror."

Clark, who has portrayed himself as the best Democratic candidate to challenge Bush on national security issues, charged the administration with violating the principles of American democracy by retaliating against anyone who expressed dissent or questioned logic.

The Justice Department is investigating who disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband had challenged Bush's claims about Iraq's weapons threat.

 

Spins so far... from the blogs...
__________

Threat matrix: (for the Plame scandal)
Excuse/Defense


Too complicated / too many facts-- Reynolds weblog
Volokh weblog

Doesn't make any sense-- Sullivan weblog
Reynolds weblog

Wilson is partisan / far-left -- May National Review
Podhoretz New York Post

Not a "leak", but arose in conversation-- Robbins National Review

Nobody called Novak with the tip-- Robbins National Review
Hannity radio

White House didn't leak (according to Novak)-- Limbaugh radio

Rove wasn't involved -- McClennan White House

Explains why "unreliable" Wilson went to Niger (CIA/Plame responsible) -- Podhoretz New York Post

Not an "operative" or "agent", but an "analyst" -- Robbins National Review (usually citing Novak), Luskin weblog

or not sure if she was covert-- Sullivan weblog

or not covert abroad-- Limbaugh website
Boot Los Angeles Times

Lots of folks knew Plame was CIA -- Robbins National Review
Novak column
May National Review

Not a risk to Plame because she's not posted overseas-- Reynolds weblog

Wilson is not in danger-- Limbaugh website

It's a partisan issue-- Hannity radio
Reynolds weblog

Outing CIA happens 50 times a year, no big deal-- Limbaugh radio

Plame's name was in the public domain-- Limbaugh radio
(usually listed as wife of Wilson) Limbaugh website
Luskin weblog

"Manufactured" scandal / outrage -- Limbaugh website
Robbins National Review
Reynolds weblog

Paying attention to Plame undermines war on terrorism -- editors New York Post
Hannity radio

Wilson was a bad choice to investigate Niger story-- Robbins National Review (incompetent, unqualified, or untrustworthy) May National Review
Reynolds weblog

Wilson is a jerk-- Sullivan weblog

It's Wilson's fault (for making such a fuss about the Niger issue) -- Levin National Review

Wilson lied when he said his mission was a request by Cheney-- May National Review

CIA participated in exposing Plame -- Luskin weblog

This is minor, real scandal is CIA intelligence failures -- Boot Los Angeles Times

Wilson's whole act is a fraud -- Podhoretz New York Post

 

This guy is unbelievable. Novak is finding it impossible to extract his foot from his mouth. He's trying to see if he can "walk and chew toenails at the same time". Bob Novak figures that if it's possible he left out any covert CIA activity that wasn't widely known, then by golly, he's gonna make sure the public and the world hears about it. What a clown. No wonder he hired an attorney. He should probably get more than one.


The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.
............................

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun & Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.
...........................

Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000, was "reattributed" so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore. Wilson also gave $1,000 to the Bush primary campaign, but there is no donation listed from his wife.



Wow, what a big deal (insert "roll-eyes" here). Wilson and his wife made political contributions... Wilson to both Gore and Bush. Hard to fault Wilson's diplomacy there. I think we're seeing a public mental breakdown by Bob Novak. I watched him on CNN today, being "interviewed" instead of "interviewing", and he looked haggard beyond belief.

I wonder what will happen next?

 

Thanks to rimrocker and "The Washington Post".

(grrrr... no edit)

 

-------------

Adviser to Bush's Father Redefines Himself as Wary Whistle-Blower
By LYNETTE CLEMETSON

ASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The dim, grainy photograph is not the best he has ever taken with a president, Joseph C. Wilson IV said, glancing at a picture of himself with President George H. W. Bush, taken in January 1991, two days before the start of the Persian Gulf war. But it is the most memorable.

The two men are caught midstride, heads bowed, walking through the White House Rose Garden, discussing the imminent military action, said Mr. Wilson, who was a senior diplomat in Baghdad at the time. "He was asking all the questions you would want a president to ask as we were contemplating war," he said. "All the human questions."

Now at the center of a political maelstrom over the current Bush administration's war in Iraq — one that has set off a Justice Department investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing by White House officials — Mr. Wilson harks back to those days with a measure of dismay.

"It gives me no pleasure whatsoever," he said of the current controversy, in an interview at his office on Friday. "It gives me great pain, in fact, because of that particular relationship, which I value, with the president's father."

Mr. Wilson has rocked the administration of President Bush, the son, not once but twice. First he challenged the administration's claim, put forth by the president in the State of the Union address, that Saddam Hussein sought uranium ore from Niger to build nuclear weapons. Then Mr. Wilson accused a senior member of the Bush administration of leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, a C.I.A. officer, to the press in retaliation for his dissent.

As a result Mr. Wilson finds himself enmeshed in a web of discord. His actions have drawn attention to growing public skepticism surrounding the Iraq war and its aftermath and have refocused attention on ideological clashes between the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

The episode has also renewed focus on a simmering conflict among architects of the first Bush administration, who embraced an international approach to foreign policy, and senior officials in the second Bush administration, who have employed a more unilateral doctrine.

Republican leaders have portrayed Mr. Wilson as a partisan Democrat with an agenda. "Joe Wilson is not an apolitical person himself," said Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "He's someone who feels passionately about politics."

But Mr. Wilson — the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein — is not so convenient a foil.

A registered Democrat who is supporting Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in his bid to win the presidency, Mr. Wilson said he voted twice for the first President Bush.

Mr. Wilson said he so respects the former president's international approach to foreign policy that when he wrote his first article questioning the current administration's developing Iraq strategy, which was published in The San Jose Mercury News in October 2002, he sent a copy to the former president. The senior Mr. Bush wrote him a brief reply, Mr. Wilson said. He refused to share the contents but said Mr. Bush's note had been "very positive."

In response to the disclosure of his wife's identity as an undercover C.I.A. officer, Mr. Wilson said, "The Republicans who have called me — there have been many — have reacted with sincere and heartfelt indignation."

Mr. Wilson has made campaign donations to the current president and briefly supported his presidential campaign in 2000, though in the end, he said, he voted for Al Gore.

Though he vehemently disagrees with the administration's handling of Iraq, he supported United States military action in Afghanistan and he supports the request Mr. Bush made to Congress for $87 billion to finance military and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"At the end of the day, we're there and obliged to succeed," Mr. Wilson said. "Despite the obstacles the administration continues to put in the way of success."

Those who have known and worked with Mr. Wilson say his partisan ties have never been easily discernible.

"I had no idea what party he was in," said Peter Teeley, 63, who served as press secretary to the senior Mr. Bush in his years as vice president. "When he was in Baghdad he was recognized, and rightly so, as someone with a lot of courage. There was a lot of admiration for Joe and a lot of respect for the way he carried out his duties for the president and for the United States."

Susan Rice, assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton administration, said of Wilson: "The guy played very much down the middle of the road politically."

That is not to say he always played it safe.

Mr. Wilson has described his ascent as an expert on Iraq as an accident of history. Appointed as deputy chief of mission in Iraq in 1988, he became the top American diplomat in the country during the Persian Gulf war only because the United States ambassador there left for vacation a day before Saddam Hussein's regime invaded Kuwait.

Once in the top post, however, he displayed a brash, even taunting, fearlessness in confronting threats from the Iraqi leader.

When, after the invasion of Kuwait, Mr. Hussein threatened to execute foreign diplomats if they did not turn over their nations' citizens, Mr. Wilson asked a Marine guard who had been an Eagle Scout to make him a noose. He wore it around his neck to a background briefing with reporters. The tactic was part of what Mr. Wilson called an "in-your-face approach" to dealing with the Iraqi leader's intimidation. "We did not want to be remembered as having gone to our deaths like sheep to the slaughterhouse," he said.

The first President Bush was so impressed with Mr. Wilson's handling of the situation in Iraq that in 1992 he appointed him to concurrent ambassadorships in Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe.

He later served as political adviser to the commander of the United States forces in Europe and as senior director of African affairs on the National Security Council, in the Clinton administration.

It was his expertise in Africa, said some of those who worked with him then, that most likely prompted the C.I.A. to ask him to conduct his fact-finding mission to Niger in February 2002, to determine whether Iraq was trying to obtain material for nuclear weapons from the country.

Mr. Wilson's personal style is alternately straightforward and laid-back. One moment he is holding forth eruditely about what he called the current administration's "penchant for unilateralism," and its mistake in taking what he called the "highest risk, lowest reward option of invasion, conquest and occupation." The next moment he is rocked back in his chair, referencing Jimmy Buffett and the need to "change latitudes and change attitudes," to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, or criticizing the way the Bush administration "dissed" the Europeans in the prelude to the war.

Mr. Wilson said he was growing increasingly frustrated with the scandal over the leaking of his wife's name, because it was distracting Americans from what he called the "real issues" concerning why the United States went to war with Iraq and how it succeeds now. He maintains he was never spoiling for a fight with the administration.

"This has never been about Joe Wilson and the White House," he said, adding that he had done his best "to make sure that the U.S. government — my government — had the best information I could provide on one aspect of the nuclear threat."

Still, his actions up to now suggest that he has no qualms about resurrecting the in-your-face strategy he used in Iraq. His lawyer, Christopher Wolf, said that Mr. Wilson and his wife were considering civil action over the disclosure of her C.I.A. ties.

As for his relationship with the first President Bush, he said he has not reached out to him recently.

"I haven't wanted to put either one of us in that kind of situation," he said.

Then he added, somewhat ruefully, "But I bet it will be a cold day in hell before any Republican president asks me to work for him again."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/national/05WILS.html

 

From The Nation...
__________________
Let's start with the Wilson leak. In the issue coming out October 6, Newsweek will be reporting that after Bob Novak published a July 14 column containing the leak attributed to "senior adminsitration officials" that identified former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative, White House officials were touting the Novak story, according to NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell. Apparently, these officials were encouraging reporters to recycle or pursue the story about Wilson's wife. The newsmagazine also notes that, according to a source close to Wilson, shortly after the leak occurred Bush's senior aide Karl Rove told Hardball host Chris Matthews that Wilson's wife was "fair game." Matthews told Newsweek that he would not discuss off-the-record conversations. (He told me the same weeks ago when I made a similar inquiry about this chat with Rove.) An anonymous source described as familiar with the exchange--presumably Rove or someone designated to speak for him--maintained that Rove had only said to Matthews it was reasonable to discuss whether Wilson's wife had been involved in his mission to Niger. (In February 2002, Wilson had been asked by the CIA to visit Niger to check out allegations Iraq had been shopping for uranium there; he did so and reported back that the charge was probably untrue. In July, he publicly challenged the White House's use of this claim and earned the administration's wrath.)

These disclosures do not reveal who were the original leakers. (The Justice Department, at the CIA's request, started out investigating the White House; it has widened its probe to include the State Department and the Defense Department.) But these new details are significant and undercut the White House line on the leak. At a White House press briefing, Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, repeatedly said that Bush and his White House took no action after the Novak column was published on July 14 because the leak was attributed only to anonymous sources. "Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper?" McClellan remarked.

He was arguing that a serious leak attributed to anonymous sources was still not serious enough to cause the president to ask, what the hell happened? And he made it seem as if the White House just ignored the matter. Not so. Mitchell's remark and even the Rove-friendly account of the Rove-Matthews conversation are evidence the White House tried to further the Plame story--that is, to exploit the leak for political gain. Rather than respond by trying to determine the source of a leak that possibly violated federal law and perhaps undermined national security ( The Washington Post reported that the leak also blew the cover of a CIA front company, "potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure"), White House officials sought to take advantage of it. Spin that, McClellan.

Newsweek is also disclosing that a National Security Council staffer previously worked with Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) and was aware of her position at the CIA because he or she had worked closely with Wilson's wife at the Agency's counterproliferation division. McClellan has indicated in his press briefings that the White House did not--and has not--acted to ascertain the source of the leak. But shouldn't Bush or chief of staff Andrew Card (if Card is not one of the leakers) have asked this person whether he or she mentioned Valerie Wilson's occupation to anyone in the White House? (I believe I know the name of this person but since he or she may be working under cover I am not at this point going to publish it.)

McClellan has had a tough time providing straight answers. At the October 1 press briefing, he was asked what Bush did after the leak first appeared. He replied by saying that "some news reports" have noted that Valerie Wilson's CIA connection "may have been well-known within the DC community." That hardly seems so. Her neighbors did not know, and Wilson maintains their close friends did not know. No reporter that I have talked to--and I've spoken to many covering this story--had heard that.

During that briefing, reporters wondered if Bush approved of the Republican campaign to depict Wilson as a partisan zealot lacking credibility. McClellan sidestepped: "The President is focused on getting to the bottom of this." The next day, he was once more asked whether it was appropriate for Republicans to be attacking Wilson. "I answered that question yesterday," he said. One problem: he hadn't. He also maintained that Bush "has been the one speaking out front on this." Not quite. For over two months, Bush had said nothing about the leak. And on this day, Bush met with reporters for African news organizations and joked about the anti-Wilson leak. When asked what he thought about the detention in Kenya of three journalists who had refused to reveal sources, he said, "I'm against leaks." This prompted laughter, and Bush went on: "I would suggest all governments get to the bottom of every leak of classified information." Addressing the reporter who had asked the question, Bush echoed the phrase that McClellan had frequently used in his press briefings and quipped, "By the way, if you know anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem?"

_______________

And think about the global human rights ramifications of that Presidential remark.

 

On 'Meet the Press' Novak says, "In my articles you will find an overuse of the word operative---I use it to describe (he goes on to name several agencies of various importance) -- I used the word foolishly."
He is basically trying to find some sort of slim defense by claiming that 'operative' was not meant to mean active in the CIA and is such a common word that everyone is an 'operative'.