Posted on 08/01/2005 1:48:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.
In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:
"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 that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA (Harlow) says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.
So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."
Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.' " According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.
The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact."
The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.
Novak is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington.
Fitzgerald knows this. It's part of why I've said from day one that the investigation is looking at other aspects of this case.
And since this appears to be news to you, I'll let you know that Wilson's online bio used to be posted at The Middle East Institute and also listed his wife as "The former Valerie Plame".
You can bet Fitzgerald knows that, too.
Of course she will be a hero. Look what the Media did with Susan McDougall. She spent two years in prison for contempt, because she would not testify before a grand jury about clinton.
She claimed she was in jail because she wouldn't lie, and the media repeated that claim every time she made it. Not once did the media point out that all she had to do was tell the truth to the jury and she would be free.
So of course Miller will be a hero. Just like Rove would be a hero (and we wouldn't know his name) if he was a democrat leaking stuff about a republican. In fact, if that were the case the story would be about how Bush was stifling the press by going on a witch hunt to find the brave whistle blower in his administration who dared speak the truth.
Rush will return today ~ he was supposed to have been in France for a little vacation.
Those of us following the story closely from the start were aware of the Ames aspect long ago. That Novak confirms it (you can never have enough verifying sources for a New York Times article) is important, but not an "introduction" of a new fact.
October 11, 2003
excerpt:
First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.
~snip~
I am no Novak fan, but he did a national service by writing that article exposing the duplicity of the C.I.A. and "Honest Joe Wilson". Too, Ms Plume does come out of this little charade without appearing dirty.
I consider myself up to date and well read in this matter. All I have had to do is separate the wheat from the chaff by reading all that you have posted. I think you have been ahead of the pack since the start. Once again kudos to you.
Makes you wonder how she could take care of them, alone, when he was on tours for his book and for Kerry's campaign.
I noted that, too, after he said it. It was right after the report established Plame had written that memo recommending him for the trip.
My point about his inane comments were they didn't sound like they described a fearless Jane Bond type (I mean, how many clues does one need that the bimbo was not undercover and had not been for many many years?)---afraid to have him leave for 10 days because of two small children? That right there told me he was tacitly admitting she was not a covert spy at the time.
Yes (and it didn't slip by me or go over my head), but only because Harlow went public last week with his false version of what he claims he told Novak.
Since Plame was clearly not covert Harlow will not be in trouble for telling Novak she worked at the CIA. He may have lied to the grand jury about what he told Novak, but I doubt it. But he clearly has established to me he is a weasel---coming out like he did last week.
Simple my dear Watson, Wilson is a typical D.C. establishment crook.
Except the "many" (lol) would have to know what his "stance" on the WOD was. Just making assumptions doesn't cut it.
Facts, you know. But I understand they are not revered here anymore.
"He always preaches to the choir, but the chorus button has become stuck...Now he just hashes, and rehashes!"
Thx for the link!
No, that's not what he said. He said people would be surprised about the details of the story. Harlow is not a surprise, per se. It's merely interesting that he came out publicly lying last week. But that's a buttress of my original point about this whole story--that we had a CIA passing out lies to reporters.
Too right,
Wilson and his wife used used the CIA to spread false information to undermine the POTUS and to try and influence a Presidential Election. That is sedition,
SEC. I Be it enacted . . ., That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot. unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.
SEC. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
pageonetoo: "I don't need Rush to tell me what, or how, I should think!"
pageonetoo: "Am I jealous of Rush. Maybe a little .. jealous of his ability to sell himself"
pageonetoo: "I have also given up donating to the Republicans."
pageonetoo: "..into.. pot .."
pageonetoo: "I would rather smoke a joint, but it's prohibited!"
So I was right. He won't carry your "legalize pot" agenda for you. LOL
How can you stand it? You must be a female. Laura's show is so dull and repetitive. And those inane "features" like the clip of the day. Awful radio.
Thank you for pointing out some possible implications of the Ames association.
Again, one would think Fitzgerald (God help us if he wasn't) was aware from the start of the New York Times piece and establishing the blowing of her cover way back when.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.